Aussies have no absolute rights

NO one in Australia had "absolute" rights and individual freedoms had to be balanced against the need to protect the community, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said today

Link

In relation to rights, there are no absolutes. Rights are often the subject of balancing

So rights or no rights ??

Someone once said to me 'Humans do not have rights, only privileges'. Maybe if more people took this view, we would be better off.

KhieuSamphan

i think u may have a point here

Ruddock is right.

Unlike the US, Australia does not have a 'Bill of Rights' meaning that Australians have no official rights written into the law.

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Someone once said to me 'Humans do not have rights, only privileges'. Maybe if more people took this view, we would be better off.

So are you saying that..

1)You do not have the right to worship or not worship what God you choose?

2)You as a responsible adult do not have the right to have children if you choose?

3)You as a responsible adult do not have the right to choose your own mate or life partner?

4)You as a responsible adult do not have say if some one wants to harm/take your child if they choose?

5)That you do not have the right to life if some one chooses you should not?

These are very basic rights but if every one seen things the way you say then that would be a life I would choose not to have. I'ld die fighting for those rights.

Originally posted by Raist
So are you saying that..

1)You do not have the right to worship or not worship what God you choose?

2)You as a responsible adult do not have the right to have children if you choose?

3)You as a responsible adult do not have the right to choose your own mate or life partner?

4)You as a responsible adult do not have say if some one wants to harm/take your child if they choose?

5)That you do not have the right to life if some one chooses you should not?

These are very basic rights but if every one seen things the way you say then that would be a life I would choose not to have. I'ld die fighting for those rights.

I think the point was that nobody has an inherent 'right' to anything. You are given privileges based upon the society you live in. Take your point #2. If you were to live in China, I believe you only have the 'right' to 1 child.

there is an international convention on Human rights that gurantees basic rights to all World citizens.

But on the subject of national law, the Aussies aren't alone in the "Western" world.

Citizens of the UK do not have "rights" either.

We are allowed to do that which is not proscribed by law, that is all.

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan

Originally posted by Raist
So are you saying that..

1)You do not have the right to worship or not worship what God you choose?

2)You as a responsible adult do not have the right to have children if you choose?

3)You as a responsible adult do not have the right to choose your own mate or life partner?

4)You as a responsible adult do not have say if some one wants to harm/take your child if they choose?

5)That you do not have the right to life if some one chooses you should not?

These are very basic rights but if every one seen things the way you say then that would be a life I would choose not to have. I'ld die fighting for those rights.

I think the point was that nobody has an inherent 'right' to anything. You are given privileges based upon the society you live in. Take your point #2. If you were to live in China, I believe you only have the 'right' to 1 child.

Yes they have a right to one child. My point was these are human rights that should not be taken from anyone. If a government tries to take any of those rights listed from some one they should not be in power.

So with the nobody has inherent rights opinion then none of us have the right to live. Thats what we need is ppl killing babies as soon as they are born. My point is that if you give any one that much power over you or the plp of your country you have no chance at any form of life as it will be abused.

So where does it leave us all ? do we have to earn of rights ?

How would you earn them if you have none to do any thing to start?

Not like some places of work where you work to get earned time off. If you have no rights to start with you don't realy have the right to live. How are you going to earn the right to live? And then if they let you have that right how are you going to earn the right to live another year? The list goes on and on.

This is my huge conspiracist side here:

What if something big is in store for Australia. Perhaps many major cities in the US are nuked and as a result there are millions of refugee Americans unable to live there. Where would they go? Where is there a large spacious country with a minimal population of mainly white english speaking people?

Now, take into account the rights issue and the tightening of gun laws and you have a situation where Americans would be forced into a situation where they are disarmed and without access to their beloved constitution.

I dont think this is going to happen really, but it's plausible. I read once an opinion that Australia was being prepped as the HQ for the NWO. It has a government that is far too big for the population it serves and I also read that Parliament House was designed to contain far more ministers etc. than it currently does. It is a relatively isolated country with a moat all the way around called the Pacific and indian oceans and is fairly straight forward to defend if you have a military of an appropriate size.

/end conspiracy nut rant

the reason australia and GB have no rights is because the law as such isnt written down, it is called common law, and is based upon how past cases have gone. there is no written law that you dont tresspass, or steal, or anything. but in the outcopmes of past trials is the rules by which people live there day to day lives. i think im not sure


and where do you get the idea that asu could be a NWO head quarters?
thats just crazy,

I think the United States is one of the only countries that spells out human rights in its Constitution...but it seems the framers of the Constitution seem to have been somewhat afraid of spelling out some rights, since it might detract from others, as defined in the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

plus the 10th seems to be important in the discussion:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Sadly it seems these are two of the most ignored parts of our Constitution lately....

Anyway, I guess I'm glad we have some rights enumerated in our Constitution, however as long as your rights are being protected by your Courts due to long-standing precedence, I don't see it as much more than an academic issue.



[edit on 8/27/2005 by djohnsto77]

You are correct we dont have a bill of rights.

There was a movement for years to GET us a bill of rights. I have no idea, unfortunately as to wether the movement is still going.

I would think at times like these, with Howard taking away workers rights and trying to dissolve the states autonomy through a number of moves that they would be active and vocal more than ever............. sadly there's only the sound of crickets from that particular corner.