Bill of Rights | INFJ Forum

Bill of Rights

S

Shai Gar

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.

Let's work on one. Feel free to steal from any nation on earth, bearing in mind that all political and legal theories have weight to them and differing philosophies.

Exempli Gratia:
English Common Law (UK, USA, Commonwealth) stems from Property Rights
French Common Law (Modern Continental Europe) stems from Human Rights

Your proposition has to have 10 Articles, and be worded in such a way as to be legally enforcible. If you're unable to do that, try as best as you can.
 
1. The Parliament shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, thought, conscience, expression or of association, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble without violence, and to petition the Parliament for a redress of grievances.​
2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Written and Publicly Documented Oath, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons, animals or objects to be seized.​
3. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the defence forces, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or an immediate family member, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, with just compensation to be agreed upon by all parties concerned.​
4. In all court proceedings wherein a loss of monies, private property, of liberty is a possible outcome, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence, also, excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​
5. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. The law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished at the behest and in accordance with the will of the party victimised so long as the proscribed punishment is equal to the punishment inflicted upon them, or is within the bounds of criminal law.​
6. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.​
7. No marriage shall be recognised by the state outside of Civil Unions, where Civil Unions are open to all, and engages the rights traditionally assigned to marriage with regards to Children, Taxation, Heritage, Entitlements and Legal Protection. The Civil Union is defined as a contract between willing and legally accepted contractual partners of any number or identity.[/I]​
8. Unsure how to write this one: Malum Prohibitum, where it does not affect other individuals health or rights to freedom shall not be enforced within their own, legally obtained place of residence or property, not including means of transportation when on public land or another persons property without their assent.​
9. Unsure how to write this one: Parliament shall make no restrictions or tax law respecting private persons giving an item or items to another person where the other person is accepting of the item or items being given to them, especially relating to inheritance or of donations to people or charity, except where Legal Tender is involved.​
10. Unsure how to write this one: Parliament may use no weapon on any member of a civilian population that is not found to be immediately in possession of, or legally allowed to own.​
 
That's very worded of you Shai Gar.
 
1. Everyone has a right to be happy, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's happiness

2. .. hmm, maybe 1 is enough. :)
 
I must agree wit Shai-Gar's post on all accounts. If only the US had a Bill of Rights that included all of it...<sigh>
 
Since noone wants to create their own "Bill of Rights", I ask that you all attack my post. Article by Article in order to strengthen it, or show the weaknesses.
 
The main thing I see Shai is I'm wondering what you mean by "Government"? Government is vague. In the U.S., the articles say "Congress..... blah blah blah", as a result, not all of the articles have been incorporated. Each article had to be incorporated to the states by the Supreme Court in the U.S. before it applied. I'm not sure if Australia has a federal system as I'm ignorant of its government for the most part, but my recommendation is to word the articles in a way that they are not subject to the B.S. of having to be incorporated or not incorporated depending upon what you are aiming for, assuming that that applies in Australia of course.
 
That's fixable by writing in Senate and Parliament, that's all? That's open and vague. What about going article by article?
 
Rights of Freedom​
1. The Parliament shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, thought, conscience, expression or of association, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble without violence, and to petition the Parliament for a redress of grievances.​
2. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law. The law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished at the behest and in accordance with the will of the party victimised so long as the proscribed punishment is equal to the punishment inflicted upon them, or is within the bounds of criminal law.​
3. No marriage shall be recognised by the state outside of Civil Unions, where Civil Unions are open to all, and engages the rights traditionally assigned to marriage with regards to Children, Taxation, Heritage, Entitlements and Legal Protection. The Civil Union is defined as a contract between willing and legally accepted contractual partners of any number or identity.​
4. Unsure how to write this one: Malum Prohibitum, where it does not affect other individuals health or rights to freedom shall not be enforced within their own, legally obtained place of residence or property, not including means of transportation when on public land or another persons property without their assent.​
5. Unsure how to write this one: Parliament shall make no restrictions or tax law respecting private persons giving an item or items to another person where the other person is accepting of the item or items being given to them, especially relating to inheritance or of donations to people or charity, except where Legal Tender is involved.​
6. Unsure how to write this one: Parliament may use no weapon on any member of a civilian population that is not found to be immediately in possession of, or legally allowed to own.​

Rights of Arrest​
7. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Written and Publicly Documented Oath, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons, animals or objects to be seized.​
8. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the defence forces, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or an immediate family member, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, with just compensation to be agreed upon by all parties concerned.​
9. In all court proceedings wherein a loss of monies, private property, of liberty is a possible outcome, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence, also, excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​
10. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.​
 
4 and 6 seem a little shaky...as for number 3, would it be possible for a civil union to include but not be limited to marriage, as marriage is a form of union? Otherwise, someone getting married would have to be hitched twice, and that seems a bit redundant.

As for article 1 and 2...those can be easily manipulated by the interpreter of the document. To simply say, " Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else" leaves a lot of openings to the subjective question of what is injury. Most actions affect quite a few people, but at what point does cause and effect become harm and injury? That, I believe, is an issue in American politics -- how much control should government have over the rights of the individual that would effect the public?
 
gloomy-optimist said:
4 and 6 seem a little shaky...as for number 3, would it be possible for a civil union to include but not be limited to marriage, as marriage is a form of union? Otherwise, someone getting married would have to be hitched twice, and that seems a bit redundant.
Click to expand...

A civil union isn't a ceremony or ritual. It's a contract you sign that is formally archived and recognised by the government. A marriage would be a ceremony that is not recognised by the government. Therefore a couple can have a religious ceremony and sign a piece of paper at the end, formalising it and making it legal. Alternatively a couple could sign the piece of paper. It'd be the same as going down to the registry office and having the paperwork done there, except it removes all religious connotations and therefore any bullshit about "A marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman".

Already in weddings a document needs to be signed at the end which is lodged with the government, this simply separates church and state.

I am not commenting on 4 or 6, because as you can see I stated they are not even written down. Therefore they cannot be criticised properly. Should you wish to write them out properly, be my guest.

gloomy-optimist said:
As for article 1 and 2...those can be easily manipulated by the interpreter of the document. To simply say, " Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else" leaves a lot of openings to the subjective question of what is injury. Most actions affect quite a few people, but at what point does cause and effect become harm and injury? That, I believe, is an issue in American politics -- how much control should government have over the rights of the individual that would effect the public?
Click to expand...
How is article 1 shaky? It's merely a clarification of the First Amendment in the U.S.A. one I've always respected, however it didn't go far enough.

Perhaps then article 2 could clarify with physical injury. because second hand smoke is an injury. It destroys alveoli. Smoking cannabis should not be illegal unless that person gets behind the wheel, or someone else is unwillingly subjected to the smoke which can kill alveoli. If you're in someones house and breathe in that smoke, you're subjecting yourself to it.

However, please clarify the weaknesses.
 
Shai Gar said:
1. The Parliament shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, thought, conscience, expression or of association, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble without violence, and to petition the Parliament for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Funky little loop hole here. With this phrasing, the government can not censure a person's freedom to speech, but they can censor what they say. If a person writes a book, they can not be arrested for writing it, but the government can do anything to prevent anybody else from reading that book. Its something to think about.
 
Not quite, that statement doesn't ensure the freedom to speech. That would simply mean that the government could not stop someone from getting information that is out there, but would not assure the connection between writer and reader. They could prevent the thing from ever becoming available. "Parliament shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech and the ability of anyone who wants to hear said speech, thought, conscience, expression or of association, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble without violence, and to petition the Parliament for a redress of grievances." I'm bad at phrasing, but I think that gets the gist, if you want to make it better.
 
No, and of the press forbids the government from interfering with publishers.
 
Shai Gar said:
That's fixable by writing in Senate and Parliament, that's all? That's open and vague. What about going article by article?
Click to expand...

Well if it applies to senate and parliament, will it apply to smaller governments as well, or will they be free to encroach on liberties as they please?
 
Each state is subservient to the Constitution of Australia.
Each states Parliament has a House of Representatives and Senate.
Each states laws are subservient to the Federal Laws.

Local Government can only make Bi-Laws and Regulations. They don't have the ability to effect change.
 
Shai Gar said:
A civil union isn't a ceremony or ritual. It's a contract you sign that is formally archived and recognised by the government. A marriage would be a ceremony that is not recognised by the government. Therefore a couple can have a religious ceremony and sign a piece of paper at the end, formalising it and making it legal. Alternatively a couple could sign the piece of paper. It'd be the same as going down to the registry office and having the paperwork done there, except it removes all religious connotations and therefore any bullshit about "A marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman".

Already in weddings a document needs to be signed at the end which is lodged with the government, this simply separates church and state.

I am not commenting on 4 or 6, because as you can see I stated they are not even written down. Therefore they cannot be criticised properly. Should you wish to write them out properly, be my guest.


How is article 1 shaky? It's merely a clarification of the First Amendment in the U.S.A. one I've always respected, however it didn't go far enough.

Perhaps then article 2 could clarify with physical injury. because second hand smoke is an injury. It destroys alveoli. Smoking cannabis should not be illegal unless that person gets behind the wheel, or someone else is unwillingly subjected to the smoke which can kill alveoli. If you're in someones house and breathe in that smoke, you're subjecting yourself to it.

However, please clarify the weaknesses.
Click to expand...

By 4 and 6 being shaky, I meant more as in difficult to understand the concept you're going for, as opposed to not as eloquently written...if that makes sense.

Article 1, because it is based off the First Amendment, is a little shaky. The First Amendment guarantees "free speech," and yet we have censorship, "political correctness," etc. The boundaries weren't clear enough defined -- when does free speech become harmful? When there is sexual material that could be seen by those not wishing to see it? When someone yells "fire" in a public place? A cuss word on the radio? At what point should free speech be limited, if at all?
Should all types and forms of freedom really be open to the public? Don't forget, allowing that also means that groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and hate propaganda is also included. Caution should be made -- freedom sounds wonderful on paper, but it's not always the wisest thing for a government to allow for complete freedom.

As for article 2, consider abortion. Is it or is it not constitutionally harmful? What is considered socially harmful, i.e. nudity around minors, drug use, etc.? Where is the boundary between my rights and the rights of the person next to me? Where is the distinction in "harmful"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back