The definitive Constitutional rights and freedoms comparison thread.

[Evil_inKarlate]

As much as I favor loonie in this discussion, he does have an unfair advantage that should be addressed. Included in the current scoring of 4-0 is our third Amendment, which pretty much everybody here agrees is rather lame as codified rights go. While going down the US Bill of Rights is a good starting point, crisis (or whoever) should be allowed to put forth rights their Constitution-equivalent grants that us Americans may not consider relevant. (A right to shoot kangaroos, on the off chance it exists, strikes me as a clear example of a right Aussies might have that Americans would never even think of - Who's to say there might not be others?)

[Diuretic]

We can't kill kangaroos (deliberately at least, the buggers have a habit of jumping in front of your vehicle at night though) without a licence. They're protected. But they taste good and they're very low in fat and cholesterol (but don't overcook them, they get tough).

[Lunatech]

Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

As much as I favor loonie in this discussion, he does have an unfair advantage that should be addressed. Included in the current scoring of 4-0 is our third Amendment, which pretty much everybody here agrees is rather lame as codified rights go. While going down the US Bill of Rights is a good starting point, crisis (or whoever) should be allowed to put forth rights their Constitution-equivalent grants that us Americans may not consider relevant. (A right to shoot kangaroos, on the off chance it exists, strikes me as a clear example of a right Aussies might have that Americans would never even think of - Who's to say there might not be others?)

Good point. If, for example, crisis were to come up with a right that we don't have codified here in the US instead of attacking the ones we do have, we this would be extremely educational.

For example, if you were to say, "We have a right to confront our representative to the parliament face to face, on an individual basis," I would say, "Hey, that's a cool right! Score one for the Australians!"

And, since one of my own countrymen agrees that Amendment Three is lame, I'll be happy to exclude it from the score. But, crisis, you do not get to decide which amendments matter to us, just like I will not tell you which of your rights and freedoms matter.

[Lunatech]

Originally Posted by Diuretic

We can't kill kangaroos (deliberately at least, the buggers have a habit of jumping in front of your vehicle at night though) without a licence. They're protected. But they taste good and they're very low in fat and cholesterol (but don't overcook them, they get tough).

My dog loves kangaroo. It being the only meat to which he is not allergic. Spendy stuff, dog food made from kangaroo, though. At least here in the 'States, anyway.

We have critters around here that run out in front of your car, too. Deer and elk, depending where you are within a hundred mile radius. And they are delicious and lean, as well. A full-sized bull elk can feed a family of four for six months, and it's a lot healthier than beef, too.

[Diuretic]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

My dog loves kangaroo. It being the only meat to which he is not allergic. Spendy stuff, dog food made from kangaroo, though. At least here in the 'States, anyway.

We have critters around here that run out in front of your car, too. Deer and elk, depending where you are within a hundred mile radius. And they are delicious and lean, as well. A full-sized bull elk can feed a family of four for six months, and it's a lot healthier than beef, too.

Until not long ago kangaroo was considered "unfit for human consumptioni". Pause. Think. Sheep (mutton/lamb) very fatty, but raised by sheep station owners who had lots of members of parliament looking after their interests. Great wool, but what about the meat...get it? High fat meat, not healthy. Roo meat, low fat but roos don't have a wool clip.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Good point. If, for example, crisis were to come up with a right that we don't have codified here in the US instead of attacking the ones we do have, we this would be extremely educational.

But, crisis, you do not get to decide which amendments matter to us, just like I will not tell you which of your rights and freedoms matter.

You know until we had this discussion I did not know we did not have a bill of rights.
We are signatories to the International Bill of Human Rights but these are not legally binding in Australia.

I will say it again, you seem to look at whatever freedom your government gives you as Rights where as I look at them as rights. You may well win an argument on your own terms by quoting your Rights from your constitution because our constitution is not written that way. Whether the rights are enshrined in a document that can be amended in any case or exist without it does not make any difference in the way we enjoy them. Our Freedoms are not written into a 200 year old document yet in practice we enjoy the same levels of overall freedom as you. You may point to the fact in some states some people can own or carry weapons that here we can’t but what value is this right if it is not in force across your whole country. Your right to free speech and assembly have been trodden upon in cases before.
And tired clichés and jingoes are the domain of the rationally bereft.

Just in case you missed it.

And no, by this I am not attacking the ones you have, or trying to decide which amendments matter to you. Under the title - The definitive Constitutional rights and freedoms comparison thread I believe I am able to discuss the way our freedoms and rights manifest themselves without having to quote from a Bill as such.
For me to actually highlight rights or freedoms we enjoy that you don’t I would most likely have to have some experience with law which I don’t. One right I suppose we do have here universally is that we cannot be sentenced to death. That may be a double edged sword depending on what side of the argument you end up on.

[rosemary]

I'm a newbie but have been lurking for some time. I hope it's o.k. if I just jump into the middle of this conversation.

Crisis, you had stated previously in this thread regarding free speech:

Freedom of speech exists not exactly by legislature yet there are few examples of where people have been oppressed much less arrested for voicing their views. One example which is current is that of certain Muslim leaders advocating Jihad. They have not been arrested for this and the debate is ongoing as to what they should be allowed to say.

My question is, without an explicit contract stating the freedoms you implicitly enjoy, what is your recourse when something like this happens? In the U.S., if Muslims were arrested simply for advocating jihad, without ever actually taking any steps, including conspiracy, towards that goal it would certainly be a violation of their free speech rights. Interest groups would gear up, they'd have attorneys begging to take their cases, and they would eventually be exonerated. Is there a similar procedure in Australia?

I think in addition to the actual documented "freedoms" in the U.S. Constitution, there is a respect for the system that helps to ensure those rights. Though there always is and probably always will be corruption, there are also checks and balances to the system. So, as referenced above, when the U.S. government tries to trample the rights of the people (as most large governments at one time or other do) there is a respected recourse for the people, namely the courts. If there is one critical amendment that enshrines individual liberty for U.S. citizens, it does not reside in the Bill or Rights, it is for certain the Fourteenth Amendment.

[crisis]

Originally Posted by rosemary

My question is, without an explicit contract stating the freedoms you implicitly enjoy, what is your recourse when something like this happens? In the U.S., if Muslims were arrested simply for advocating jihad, without ever actually taking any steps, including conspiracy, towards that goal it would certainly be a violation of their free speech rights. Interest groups would gear up, they'd have attorneys begging to take their cases, and they would eventually be exonerated. Is there a similar procedure in Australia?

There would have to be a law to charge them under for them to be arrested. There is nothing to stop a government making such a law. If a government made such a law and it was extremely unpopular that government may be voted out on the strength of it and an opposition may renounce it. We have had constitutional legal battles. I am not sure of the subjects.

Originally Posted by rosemary

I think in addition to the actual documented "freedoms" in the U.S. Constitution, there is a respect for the system that helps to ensure those rights. Though there always is and probably always will be corruption, there are also checks and balances to the system. So, as referenced above, when the U.S. government tries to trample the rights of the people (as most large governments at one time or other do) there is a respected recourse for the people, namely the courts. If there is one critical amendment that enshrines individual liberty for U.S. citizens, it does not reside in the Bill or Rights, it is for certain the Fourteenth Amendment.

I suppose to an extent democracy itself is supposed to take care of much of this. Our current government put in place a whole lot of new Industrial Relations laws which have been fairly unpopular. The opposition has pounced on them and promised to remove them if they gat into power at the next election.
For all this I feel we enjoy a very similar sense of freedom as do Americans. Without a constitution. All that has been pointed out to me is that the U.S. citizens have documented rights, not any more actual freedom.

[rosemary]

Originally Posted by crisis

If a government made such a law and it was extremely unpopular that government may be voted out on the strength of it and an opposition may renounce it.

So is there any recourse if your government were to enact law that violated some people's freedoms, but garnered popular appeal?

If this is too off-topic just let me know. You just piqued my curiosity in Australia's government, so I figured I would ask.

[Diuretic]

Originally Posted by rosemary

So is there any recourse if your government were to enact law that violated some people's freedoms, but garnered popular appeal?

If this is too off-topic just let me know. You just piqued my curiosity in Australia's government, so I figured I would ask.

If I may.

The recourse is to the courts. Issues of constitutionality and legality would go to the High Court of Australia which would sit not as an appellate court but in its original jurisdiction - constitutional questions being referred to the HCA. The HCA would then look at the Constitution (not that helpful, it's not the sort of document that the US constitution is. But the HCA would also look to precedents in English law which are applicable, especially in terms of rights. Constitutional decisions in English law are persuasive in our laws and our HCA would give them more than a nod of acceptance.

[rosemary]

Originally Posted by Diuretic

But the HCA would also look to precedents in English law which are applicable, especially in terms of rights. Constitutional decisions in English law are persuasive in our laws and our HCA would give them more than a nod of acceptance.

Oh that's interesting. Does the use of English precedent, and constitutional decisions go back to the history you cited previously?

The colonies and province negotiated to become a federation and Australia became one nation (federation) on 1 January 1901. Now this was only possible because the Imperial Parliament in Britain allowed it to happen ! Our constitution is in fact no ours, it is an Act of the Imperial Parliament to create our nation.

I am finding it a bit difficult to imagine how civil rights are protected if they are not enshrined in a document. Not to say that the enshrining always and forever protects those rights. Just that, if and when those rights are violated in the U.S., we always go back to the documents themselves in seeking relief. I'm going to have to look up Australia's Constitution to see what it is like, and to feed my curiosity.

Thanks for the info.

[Diuretic]

Originally Posted by rosemary

Oh that's interesting. Does the use of English precedent, and constitutional decisions go back to the history you cited previously?

It's a bit complex because of the way the country was settled and the establishment of the federation and legislation in the 1980s that severed a direct connection with the English legal system (prior to 1986 it was possible for an Australian to appeal to the Privvy Council in London, that was stopped and now the final appellate court is our High Court). Each state in this country also has a constitution and because each state (originally colonies) was founded at different times then the influence of English law differs from state to state. Added to that is the fact that three states and a territory have codified legal systems and three states have common law legal systems and it all gets very messy. But in a nutshell, yes, the historical English cases have great influence, especially on constitutional issues.

Originally Posted by rosemary:

I am finding it a bit difficult to imagine how civil rights are protected if they are not enshrined in a document. Not to say that the enshrining always and forever protects those rights. Just that, if and when those rights are violated in the U.S., we always go back to the documents themselves in seeking relief. I'm going to have to look up Australia's Constitution to see what it is like, and to feed my curiosity.

Thanks for the info.

You're welcome.\

Our constitution is mute on the issues that you are familiar with in the bill of rights. For example, the HCA has found that we have an "implied" right of free speech. That's not as sad as it sounds because we have a mix of rights - freedom from and freedom to are contained in a mix of English common law, Australian statutes and judicial decisions. As in the UK our constitutional rights are scattered about. Some say that's a good thing, that there is no single constitution that can be traduced. I'd like to see a Charter similar to the Canadian charter for us though.

[Lunatech]

Originally Posted by crisis

You know until we had this discussion I did not know we did not have a bill of rights.
We are signatories to the International Bill of Human Rights but these are not legally binding in Australia.

So they mean nothing.

Originally Posted by crisis

I will say it again, you seem to look at whatever freedom your government gives you as Rights where as I look at them as rights.

Wrong. I look at rights as "no-touchies" for the government. Something that belongs to the people and cannot be rescinded by the government, as they are not part of the government's power.

Originally Posted by crisis

You may well win an argument on your own terms by quoting your Rights from your constitution because our constitution is not written that way.

I am not trying to win an argument, here. When I started this thread, I had an overwhelming feeling that we were a chimpanzee and a gibbon arguing over who was more free based on whose cage was bigger. I was hoping we could all learn from this thread, and you seem to have a different goal.

Originally Posted by crisis

Whether the rights are enshrined in a document that can be amended in any case or exist without it does not make any difference in the way we enjoy them. Our Freedoms are not written into a 200 year old document yet in practice we enjoy the same levels of overall freedom as you.

Because you feel as free? With no facts or documentation to support you? Why are you even discussing this, then?

Originally Posted by crisis

You may point to the fact in some states some people can own or carry weapons that here we can’t but what value is this right if it is not in force across your whole country. Your right to free speech and assembly have been trodden upon in cases before.

And those cases have been addressed, or are being addressed, and corrections have been or are being made. I point out when they are trodden on to demonstrate and illustrate how they work in context.

Originally Posted by crisis

And tired clichés and jingoes are the domain of the rationally bereft.

How many times will you repeat this before it becomes a cliche?

Originally Posted by crisis

Just in case you missed it.

And no, by this I am not attacking the ones you have, or trying to decide which amendments matter to you. Under the title - The definitive Constitutional rights and freedoms comparison thread I believe I am able to discuss the way our freedoms and rights manifest themselves without having to quote from a Bill as such.
For me to actually highlight rights or freedoms we enjoy that you don’t I would most likely have to have some experience with law which I don’t.

But you have enough experience to tell me what freedoms we in the US celebrate are irrelevant. Nice. Could you also tell me what's on the menu at The Ram Pub? Of course not, but if you really want to discuss things, you could let Google be your guide, and see what you can come up with. Diuretic seems to be doing alright, and I doubt he has a lot of experience with the law.

Originally Posted by crisis

One right I suppose we do have here universally is that we cannot be sentenced to death. That may be a double edged sword depending on what side of the argument you end up on.

Now, that's what I'm looking for! We don't have that right at all here, although I would say many here could get behind. I myself would prefer to it to what we have here. Mostly because I think that the loss of freedom (for life, if you will) would be a much worse punishment then death.

How does it manifest itself? Is it just not an option of the courts? What do you do with repeat offenders of truly ghastly crimes?

For example, Timothy McVeigh was executed a while back for blowing up a Federal building in Oklahoma City. What does Autralia do with people like that?

[crisis]

Originally Posted by Lunatech

So they mean nothing.

They mean we currently enjoy them.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Wrong. I look at rights as "no-touchies" for the government. Something that belongs to the people and cannot be rescinded by the government, as they are not part of the government's power.

Yes but in the end it is all piss and wind. You already said how some of your Rights are being trampled on. So what effectively is the difference?

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I am not trying to win an argument, here. When I started this thread, I had an overwhelming feeling that we were a chimpanzee and a gibbon arguing over who was more free based on whose cage was bigger. I was hoping we could all learn from this thread, and you seem to have a different goal.

So far I have learned. I am trying to point out that whether a right is enshrined in a constitution, a part of law or merely implied it means little if those rights are uniformly enjoyed. It may make some people feel more comfortable to have them in a document that promises unassailability but in practice it may not work out that way.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Because you feel as free? With no facts or documentation to support you? Why are you even discussing this, then?

I live the freedoms I talk about each day. It doesn’t matter that they are not supported by documentation. One day it may but so may yours.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

And those cases have been addressed, or are being addressed, and corrections have been or are being made. I point out when they are trodden on to demonstrate and illustrate how they work in context.

How are they being addressed and what outcome do you expect. And how do you know they will not be trodden on again and need addressing again. We can address similar issues at the polling booth. In effect no difference.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

How many times will you repeat this before it becomes a cliche?

Probably as long as I keep reading them.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

But you have enough experience to tell me what freedoms we in the US celebrate are irrelevant. Nice.

You told me the one you thought irrelevant. You seem to delight in putting your words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Could you also tell me what's on the menu at The Ram Pub? Of course not, but if you really want to discuss things, you could let Google be your guide, and see what you can come up with. Diuretic seems to be doing alright, and I doubt he has a lot of experience with the law.

However you wouldn’t know.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

Now, that's what I'm looking for! We don't have that right at all here, although I would say many here could get behind.

We don’t have that Right. We don’t have a death penalty. Two different ways of accomplishing the same outcome.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

I myself would prefer to it to what we have here. Mostly because I think that the loss of freedom (for life, if you will) would be a much worse punishment then death.

Well a life sentence here is no more than 30 years (probably see me out).

Originally Posted by Lunatech

How does it manifest itself? Is it just not an option of the courts? What do you do with repeat offenders of truly ghastly crimes?

At most they may be locked up for life ( a statutory time). Although one child murderer and paedophile is currently coming close to release. Our State Government is looking at introducing a law to keep him locked away. Good idea but a little ad hoc and popularist.

Originally Posted by Lunatech

For example, Timothy McVeigh was executed a while back for blowing up a Federal building in Oklahoma City. What does Autralia do with people like that?

We have never had anything like that. The perpetrators of the Sydney Hilton bombing were never found. If they were it would be a jail sentence.