Bill of Rights

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Bill of Rights

2009-08-29 11:44:54

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6693|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
It does jack shit.
The army will always defeat an armed populous. And if the army changes sides and helps the people then being armed is near on pointless.

All that happens now is small groups of militants who don't like what the majority voted for think they have the right to go shoot some people for disagreeing with them.
Have you never thought the army may be part of the populous? That's why Russian and French and the American revolution was so succesful.
Yeh that may (or may not) have slipped my mind... But at least I read your whole damn post and can comprehend English, unlike you.

Hey now... Cybargs brought up a good point. It is true that armies usually are less willing to kill their own people. In some societies, this isn't the case (like China), but in countries like yours and mine, it would be a definite issue for soldiers.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-29 11:46:10)

2009-08-29 12:04:17

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6969|Disaster Free Zone

Ohh sigh not you too....
READ!!!!

I wrote:
It does jack shit.
The army will always defeat an armed populous. And if the army changes sides and helps the people then being armed is near on pointless.

All that happens now is small groups of militants who don't like what the majority voted for think they have the right to go shoot some people for disagreeing with them.

2009-08-29 12:09:22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6693|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:
Ohh sigh not you too....
READ!!!!
I wrote:
It does jack shit.
The army will always defeat an armed populous. And if the army changes sides and helps the people then being armed is near on pointless.

All that happens now is small groups of militants who don't like what the majority voted for think they have the right to go shoot some people for disagreeing with them.

That doesn't invalidate what I or Cybargs said, because it doesn't render being armed as pointless.

Think about it. If the people do have guns and form an armed resistance, it's likely to escalate the conflict between the army and the people much faster than if they aren't armed. More soldiers die and so do more civilians.

If anything, it would speed up the process of soldiers refusing to witness so much bloodshed among their own people.

Without having the people armed, it's easier to just arrest people and throw them in camps (kind of like how the rise of the Nazies went).

2009-08-29 12:17:48

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7004

Turquoise wrote:
Burwhale wrote:
Turq wrote:
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut and paste ours. A large portion of our Bill of Rights functions well across cultural lines.
You can probably keep the second amendment though.
Fair enough.

I am an adamant supporter of gun rights in America, but if I lived in Australia, I probably wouldn't mind your gun control -- because it can actually work there.

Gun control only works to a certain extent here, so a gun ban would be ridiculously ineffective. In Australia, I guess the proof of your gun laws' effectiveness is your much lower crime rates.

Guns aren't the main cause of crime... Drugs are tbh. Less drugs, less crime.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-08-29 12:22:22

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6693|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Burwhale wrote:

You can probably keep the second amendment though.
Fair enough.

I am an adamant supporter of gun rights in America, but if I lived in Australia, I probably wouldn't mind your gun control -- because it can actually work there.

Gun control only works to a certain extent here, so a gun ban would be ridiculously ineffective. In Australia, I guess the proof of your gun laws' effectiveness is your much lower crime rates.
Guns aren't the main cause of crime... Drugs are tbh. Less drugs, less crime.

Sort of... It's difficult to really say either way.

On the one hand, you have countries where guns are legal, like America, and we have a much higher violent crime rate than most of the First World.

On the other hand, you have countries where most drugs are legal or decriminalized, like the Netherlands, where crime is relatively low, but addiction is a major problem.

I think it depends on the country as to what is best to legalize and criminalize. In America, guns are necessarily legal, but we should probably legalize some of the softer drugs too. Our addiction problem is pretty bad with crystal meth though, so I don't know what exactly we should do about that.

With a country like Australia, I suppose they're probably ok doing what they've been doing, because they have low crime, and addiction isn't too bad either.

With a country like the Netherlands, they don't need guns legalized, but they seriously need to do something about their drug addiction.

2009-08-29 13:24:45

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7004

Turquoise wrote:
Cybargs wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Fair enough.

I am an adamant supporter of gun rights in America, but if I lived in Australia, I probably wouldn't mind your gun control -- because it can actually work there.

Gun control only works to a certain extent here, so a gun ban would be ridiculously ineffective. In Australia, I guess the proof of your gun laws' effectiveness is your much lower crime rates.
Guns aren't the main cause of crime... Drugs are tbh. Less drugs, less crime.
Sort of... It's difficult to really say either way.

On the one hand, you have countries where guns are legal, like America, and we have a much higher violent crime rate than most of the First World.

On the other hand, you have countries where most drugs are legal or decriminalized, like the Netherlands, where crime is relatively low, but addiction is a major problem.

I think it depends on the country as to what is best to legalize and criminalize. In America, guns are necessarily legal, but we should probably legalize some of the softer drugs too. Our addiction problem is pretty bad with crystal meth though, so I don't know what exactly we should do about that.

With a country like Australia, I suppose they're probably ok doing what they've been doing, because they have low crime, and addiction isn't too bad either.

With a country like the Netherlands, they don't need guns legalized, but they seriously need to do something about their drug addiction.

Meh, it's more like economical situation (not GDP of the country, but ghettos). Crack is the major drug that causes problems... Read Freakanomics, explains a lot of shit. Oh and crime goes down with higher abortion rate lulz

2009-08-29 13:41:30

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6699|'Murka

The fact that his first reason is "diminishing the prestige of Parliament" tells me that he doesn't get the basic reasoning for a Bill of Rights.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-08-29 15:01:57

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6995|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:
On the one hand, you have countries where guns are legal, like America, and we have a much higher violent crime rate than most of the First World.

Of course this has nothing to do with our ethnic diversity, our adjacency to Central America/northern South America, our economic disparity, or our cultural disposition.

DrunkFace wrote:
And if the army changes sides and helps the people then being armed is near on pointless.

This only makes any remote amount of sense on paper.

2009-08-29 16:28:37

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6693|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
On the one hand, you have countries where guns are legal, like America, and we have a much higher violent crime rate than most of the First World.
Of course this has nothing to do with our ethnic diversity, our adjacency to Central America/northern South America, our economic disparity, or our cultural disposition.

Hey, I agree, but even I'll admit that our homicide rates would probably be lower if we somehow were able to magically get rid of all handguns from America and our neighbors.

Guns do make it easier to kill people during violent acts, but the reason why I support gun rights has less to do with the Constitution and more to do with the realities you've stated here.

2009-08-29 16:32:30

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6693|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:
Meh, it's more like economical situation (not GDP of the country, but ghettos). Crack is the major drug that causes problems... Read Freakanomics, explains a lot of shit. Oh and crime goes down with higher abortion rate lulz

This is true. Poverty is the primary cause of crime, and highly addictive drugs don't help things. Still, I would argue that the availability of crack and crystal meth make it imperative that we deal with drugs from more of a rehabilitation angle than a mandatory sentence one.

For those who prove to be unable to kick their addictions, we should probably just keep them locked up in sanitariums. It may be somewhat oppressive, but it is practical and lessens drug problems overall.

As for abortion, I somewhat agree. I think the frequency of abortion in certain poorer nations does lessen crime, but in other cases, there are countries where abortion is mostly illegal but crime is still low (like in Ireland).

2009-08-30 00:07:39

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7003|US

If your government will always consider your rights as an overriding concern, you'll never need a BoR.

...do any of you actually believe that?
...do you simply not care because you think it won't negatively affect you?
...do you not care because you don't mind sacrificing "for the greater good?' [Hot Fuzz]THE GREATER GOOD[/Hot Fuzz]

2009-08-30 01:37:25

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6963|Canberra, AUS

No we should not have a Bill of Rights because neither party trusts the other beyond as far as they can throw them, and thus there is not the slightest chance of a BoR which actually 1. is acceptable to both parties and 2. actually functions as a BoR.

Last edited by Spark (2009-08-30 01:37:44)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-08-30 04:33:54

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7004

Spark wrote:
No we should not have a Bill of Rights because neither party trusts the other beyond as far as they can throw them, and thus there is not the slightest chance of a BoR which actually 1. is acceptable to both parties and 2. actually functions as a BoR.

Copy the Canadian or British one tbh. Since all BoR's are typically the same.

2009-08-30 04:46:52

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6511|Brisneyland

FEOS wrote:
The fact that his first reason is "diminishing the prestige of Parliament" tells me that he doesn't get the basic reasoning for a Bill of Rights.

Our previous Prime minister , John Howard was never a smart man, but he was very devious and manipulative. I think thats his angle in all of this.

2009-08-30 04:50:04

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6511|Brisneyland

Spark wrote:
No we should not have a Bill of Rights because neither party trusts the other beyond as far as they can throw them, and thus there is not the slightest chance of a BoR which actually 1. is acceptable to both parties and 2. actually functions as a BoR.

ALthough I havent read all the Bills O Rights, what I have read is pretty general stuff that would be hard for any party to disagree with.
I think it may be possible to get a bi-partisan agreement on this. As unlikely as that seems.

2009-08-30 04:52:02

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6437|'straya

To be honest our government has functioned fine (or even better than some 1st world countries) for 108 years. A bill of rights is pretty much pointless. Any removal of rights typically found in a BoR (except 2nd amendment in USA) would result in that party being immediately voted out/defeated in either house. So really to get rid of any of those rights would require the abolishment of our democratic government.

The last thing we need to do is become more like America (No offence but I feel we need to maintain our own cultural, social and political heritage not simply adopt America's)

Burwhale wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The fact that his first reason is "diminishing the prestige of Parliament" tells me that he doesn't get the basic reasoning for a Bill of Rights.
Our previous Prime minister , John Howard was never a smart man, but he was very devious and manipulative. I think thats his angle in all of this.

If you think he wasn't smart then you are sadly mistaken. He was one of the most politically intelligent politicians in this country. People only seem to remember the last years of Howard, when really he did plenty of good (and some bad) in the years before. Wether or not I agree with his policies I can at least respect that when he said he would do something he did it, even if it was not overly popular at the time. Rudd sways so much and makes false promises left, right and centre that I can never take any new policy by him seriously.

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2009-08-30 04:56:03)

2009-08-30 05:00:06

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7004

Burwhale wrote:
Spark wrote:
No we should not have a Bill of Rights because neither party trusts the other beyond as far as they can throw them, and thus there is not the slightest chance of a BoR which actually 1. is acceptable to both parties and 2. actually functions as a BoR.
ALthough I havent read all the Bills O Rights, what I have read is pretty general stuff that would be hard for any party to disagree with.
I think it may be possible to get a bi-partisan agreement on this. As unlikely as that seems.

American BoR relates from freedom of speech(1st), privacy (4th), Voting rights(13-15,18th) and right to not say shit in court (5th). I personally find it a necessity to have a BoR in any democracy.

2009-08-30 05:20:57

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6963|Canberra, AUS

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power. The Constitution consists mainly of provisions relating to the structure of the Commonwealth Parliament, executive government and the federal judicial system.(6) There is no list of personal rights or freedoms which may be enforced in the courts. There are however some provisions relating to personal rights such as the right to trial by jury (section 80), and the right to freedom of religion (section 116).

Since 1992 decisions of the High Court have indicated that there are implied rights to free speech and communication on matters concerning politics and government, e.g. permitting political advertising during election campaigns.(7) This is known as the 'implied freedom of political communication'. Issues arising from these decisions include defining when communication is 'political' and when the freedom should prevail over competing public interests.(8)

In 1942 a Constitutional Convention held in Canberra recommended that the Constitution be amended to include a new section 116A preventing the Commonwealth or a State passing laws which curtailed freedom of speech or of the press.(9) The government did not accept this proposal and it was not included in the referendum on 19 August 1944, when other constitutional amendments were proposed.

The advantage of having such rights written into the Constitution is that they are 'entrenched' and cannot be amended or removed by any government without the overwhelming approval of the people voting at a referendum to amend the Constitution.(10) Rights contained in other legislation, such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, are not entrenched. They may be amended or repealed by any government with the consent of Parliament.

From APH.

FOR

Australian law does not protect fundamental freedoms

A Bill of Rights would give power of action to Australians who are otherwise powerless

A Bill of Rights would bring Australia into line with the rest of the world

A Bill of Rights would enhance Australian democracy by protecting the rights of minorities

A Bill of Rights would put rights above politics and arbitrary governmental action

A Bill of Rights would improve government policy making and administrative decision making

A Bill of Rights would serve an important educative function

A Bill of Rights would promote tolerance and understanding in the community

AGAINST

Rights are already well protected in Australia

The High Court is already protecting rights through its interpretation of the Constitution and the common law

Rights listed in the Constitution or Acts actually make little or no difference in protecting rights

The political system itself is the best protection of rights in Australia

A Bill of Rights would actually restrict rights, that is, to define a right is to limit it

A Bill of Rights would be undemocratic by giving unelected judges the power to override the judgment of Parliament

A Bill of Rights would politicise the judiciary

A Bill of Rights would be very expensive given the amount of litigation it would generate

A Bill of Rights would be alien to our tradition of Parliamentary sovereignty

A Bill of Rights would protect rights (e.g. the right to bear arms) which might not be so important to future generations

The one bolded is the one I completely forgot about but it seems to be the main argument against a BoR in this country.

Last edited by Spark (2009-08-30 05:35:34)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-02 04:29:54

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6699|'Murka

Not big fans of checks and balances in Australia?

2009-09-02 06:01:01

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7056

FEOS wrote:
Not big fans of checks and balances in Australia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … _Australia

Our businesses are far more regulated that the US

We have independent bodies that sit above banking & finance, police, telecommunications, workplace, federal agencies, etc

Last edited by BN (2009-09-02 06:04:08)

2009-09-02 06:22:17

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7004

FEOS wrote:
Not big fans of checks and balances in Australia?

There is but they all like the idea of shitty internet and big ass firewalls.

2009-09-02 07:21:07

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|7003|US

A Bill of Rights would be undemocratic by giving unelected judges the power to override the judgment of Parliament

We have independent bodies that sit above banking & finance, police, telecommunications, workplace, federal agencies, etc

Am I missing something? You don't want a BoR because it would "skirt democracy" but you have independent bodies overseeing all these aspects of your nation...isn't that undemocratic?

2009-09-03 02:50:34

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6699|'Murka

BN wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Not big fans of checks and balances in Australia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … _Australia

Our businesses are far more regulated that the US

We have independent bodies that sit above banking & finance, police, telecommunications, workplace, federal agencies, etc

I meant checks and balances between the branches of government, not regulatory agencies.

2009-09-03 03:16:57

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6963|Canberra, AUS

FEOS wrote:
BN wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Not big fans of checks and balances in Australia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … _Australia

Our businesses are far more regulated that the US

We have independent bodies that sit above banking & finance, police, telecommunications, workplace, federal agencies, etc
I meant checks and balances between the branches of government, not regulatory agencies.

The opposition here performs many, many more roles than the equivalent in Congress. That's our main check and balance.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-03 05:47:21

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7056

FEOS wrote:
BN wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Not big fans of checks and balances in Australia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation … _Australia

Our businesses are far more regulated that the US

We have independent bodies that sit above banking & finance, police, telecommunications, workplace, federal agencies, etc
I meant checks and balances between the branches of government, not regulatory agencies.

Ok, sorry.

The senate is one of our "checks and balances".

They usually hold the "balance of power" when voting bills into laws.

The Governor General can dismiss the Prime Minister.

The opposition can "block supply".

I am no expert, but these are the sorts of things I can remember from Year 11 legal studies some 16 years ago.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Bill of Rights

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Bill of Rights

DrunkFace wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

I wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

I wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Turq wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spark wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

BN wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

BN wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

BN wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer