Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Britain. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Eurobama Seeks Support From Green EU Social Welfare Regulatory State to 'Change' America

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/26/obama.london/index.html

Obama, Brown discuss 'special relationship'


LONDON, England (CNN)


July 26, 2008


U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama met with British Prime Gordon Brown on Saturday on the last leg of his weeklong overseas tour.


The two discussed foreign policy issues and the "special relationship" between Britain and America during two hours of talks inside 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's London residence.


The pair made the most of the sunshine by sitting outside on the patio, even taking a stroll toward adjacent St. James's Park, much to the surprise of nearby tourists.


"The prime minister's emphasis, like mine, is on how we can strengthen the transatlantic relationship to solve problems that can't be solved by any single country individually," Obama said outside Downing Street after the meeting.


Those problems, Obama said, include climate change, international terrorism and turmoil in world financial markets. Obama and Brown also discussed cooperation in resolving the problems in the Middle East and burden-sharing in Iraq and Afghanistan.


Earlier, Obama met with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who now serves as the Middle East envoy for the "quartet" of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. Watch more on Obama's visit to London »


After his meeting with Brown, Obama met with opposition leader David Cameron, head of the Conservative Party, before heading back to the United States.


During the meeting, a camera microphone picked up some light banter between the two men about Obama's current state of fatigue.


Cameron told the candidate, "You should be on the beach. ... You need a break. ... You need to be able to keep your head together."


Obama told Cameron he would try to take a week off in August. He said he got advice from a Clinton White House veteran on how to handle the demands on his time.


"Somebody who had worked in the White House -- not Clinton himself -- but somebody who had been close to the process, said that [should we be successful] ... the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you're doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be ..."


Cameron interjected, "These guys just chalk your diary up." Obama agreed: "Right, exactly, in 15-minute increments."


Cameron told him: "We call it the dentist waiting room. You have to scrap that, because you've got to have time." Obama said that not taking a break is when "you start making mistakes or you lose the big picture."


Obama's trip has taken him through the Middle East and Europe, starting with Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and the West Bank and finishing with Germany, France and Britain.


Though Obama joked with the British press that London was the highlight for him, his trip has included several other moments that have garnered positive international headlines, most recently a Friday news conference in Paris with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a speech in Berlin on Thursday to about 200,000 people.


The Democratic candidate admitted that his ratings may have slipped in the United States since he's been away, as Americans focus more on domestic problems like gas prices and home foreclosures than on his travels abroad. But he said he still considers the trip important.


"The reason that I thought this trip was important is that I am convinced that many of the issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad and unless we get a handle on Iraq and Afghanistan," Obama said.


The military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, are costing America money that could be better spent on rebuilding the U.S. economy.


"This was important for me not only to try to highlight or amplify how the international situation affects our economy back home but also hopefully to give people at home and also leaders abroad some sense of where an Obama administration might take our foreign policy," he said. Watch Obama's complete interview with CNN's Candy Crowley »


Obama's staff has repeatedly said that the tour is not political and not intended as a campaign trip, although Obama's meetings with troops and world leaders were designed to boost his foreign policy credentials [???] and help voters back home envision him as commander in chief.

The warm atmosphere in Paris -- where Sarkozy repeatedly called Obama a friend -- continued in London, and not just because of the warm summer temperatures that finally settled on the British capital this week. Watch France's obsession with Obama. »


[WITH 'FRIENDS' LIKE FRANCE, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES?? ANYHOW, WHY IS FRANCE ANY MORE RELEVANT NOW THAN IT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN?]


Obama and Brown were shown laughing and smiling as they walked together, and Obama reiterated to reporters that the special relationship between Britain and America continues.


"I think there's a deep and abiding affection for the British people in America and a fascination with all things British that is not going to go away any time soon," Obama said.


[DOES EUROBAMA REALLY MEAN GREEN?? OR, DOES HE MEAN ANIMALS HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?]


In a radio address Saturday, presumptive Republican candidate Sen. John McCain took aim at Obama's "long-distance affair."


"With all the breathless coverage from abroad, and with Sen. Obama now addressing his speeches to 'the people of the world,' I'm starting to feel a little left out. Maybe you are, too," McCain said.


Britain was a low-key stop on Obama's itinerary, in part because no major events were planned. Brown also decided not to greet the U.S. senator on the doorstep of 10 Downing Street because he didn't grant the same honor to McCain when the Republican visited in March.


That protocol comes at a difficult time politically for the British prime minister, who could have benefited from a photo opportunity with a man so hugely popular in Europe. Brown's Labor Party lost a local election this week in what had been considered safe territory for the party, adding to existing political woes for Brown and raising questions about his future as prime minister.


Asked by a British reporter whether he had any advice for Brown, Obama said no -- but he said elected officials must always be prepared to deal with a fickle public.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Obama ends last leg of his Middle East, European tour

Last Updated(Beijing Time):2008-07-28 14:43


U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is winding up the last leg of his "world tour" to the Middle East and Europe designed to boost his say in foreign affairs amid a presidential campaign dead heat back in the United States.


On Saturday, Obama told a news conference that "the reason that I thought this trip was important is that I am convinced that many issues that we face at home are not going to be solved as effectively unless we have strong partners abroad."


When meeting with British Prime Minister Gorden Brown Saturday, he said "We share the same language and the same belief" and Britain and the United States have gone through the world wars together and share same views on the world order."


[THE U.S. AND BRITAIN SHARE THE SAME WORLD VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THE UNITED NATIONS & INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ???]


In a move to respond to criticism that he is "naive and innocent" in foreign policy, Obama also discussed climate change, international terrorism and the Middle East situation with Brown and reiterated his call for increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

During his visit to France, Obama held discussions with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Speaking at a joint press conference, Sarkozy said there was a "great convergence of views" with Obama and that they had much to do in dealing with issues such as climate change, reform of world institutions and the maintenance of world peace.



In Germany, German Chancellor Angela Merkel had "very open and in-depth" talks with Obama on Thursday.


During the one-hour talks, Merkel and Obama exchanged views on a wide range of key international issues, including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East peace process.


They also discussed the trans-Atlantic economic partnership, climate change and energy issues, the state of the global economy and the need for cooperation on the international level and in international organizations to tackle important global issues.


During his 30-hour stay at Israel and the Palestinian territory, the White House hopeful projected himself as an active and constructive partner in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and as a steadfast opponent to a nuclear Iran.


"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States and my abiding commitment to Israel's security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a U.S. senator or as president," he told Israeli President Shimon Peres on Wednesday.


Obama also made a gesture to the Palestinians, pledging active and constructive involvement in the protracted Middle East peace process.

In a brief visit to the West Bank, Obama assured Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would be "a constructive partner in the peace process" and "would not waste a minute if elected."


He emphasized that what Israelis and Palestinians need is a true and lasting peace instead of a piece of paper, and that it is in Israel's interests to establish "a viable, peaceful Palestine."

Turning to another front that manifests the U.S.-Israeli alliance, Obama said he would "take no options off the table" to prevent a nuclear Iran.


"A nuclear Iran would be a game-changing situation, not just in the Middle East, but around the world," said Obama. "A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat, and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."


Asked about his previously stated notion of having talks with Iranian leaders, Obama said he still holds that if it would promote the national security interests of the United States, he would be willing to meet with any leader.


"We should exhaust every possible avenue" on Iran, dealing with the issue with "carrots and sticks," said the candidate, adding that if Iran rejects the offers, then "we will be in a stronger position" to call on the international community to respond collectively against the Islamic republic.


Obama arrived in Iraq Monday morning after a visit to Afghanistan, the first leg of his Middle East and European tour.


The Democratic presidential candidate has promised, if elected, he will withdraw the U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months, and send more troops to Afghanistan where security situation is getting worse.


In addition, Obama also promised long-term support to Afghanistan when he met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the Presidential Palace on Sunday.


Matters pertaining situation in Afghanistan, regional stability, fight against drug, war on terror and enhancing Kabul-Washington relations were discussed.


Both sides had exchanged views on boosting economic relations between Afghanistan and the United States and on bolstering reconstruction process of the post-Taliban nation in the meeting.

Obama has embarked on a multi-stop overseas trip for meetings with a number of heads of states since last week.


The trip is aimed to bolster the U.S. presidential hopeful's credentials in foreign policy and national security, which is considered his "weak point" in comparison to his Republican rival John McCain.


In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 48 percent of registered voters said Obama would make a good commander in chief, compared with 72 percent for McCain.


Source:Xinhuanet

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Obama: Help from allies will improve things at home


BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- America's allies in Europe are crucial to the success of anti-terror efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and in helping solve economic problems at home, Sen. Barack Obama told CNN on Friday.


"Part of getting that right is having the Europeans engaged and involved in this same battle that we're involved with," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told CNN's Candy Crowley on Friday in Berlin, Germany, where he had addressed a crowd estimated at 200,000 a day earlier.


Asked what message his traveling abroad three months before the election sent to Americans, Obama said getting commitments from the United States' partners would help address some of the domestic issues Americans are facing.


[WHAT EUROBAMA LIKELY HAS IN MIND IS FOR THE U.S. TO ADOPT EU REGULATORY, TRADE, TAX, SOCIAL WELFARE AND FOREIGN POLICIES SO THAT WE 'BECOME ONE WITH THE EU', MUCH LIKE A 'COLLECTIVE'. WHY DOES THE U.S. NEED EUROPEAN HELP TO RESOLVE OUR DOMESTIC MATTERS, UNLESS EUROBAMA REALLY WANTS TO PURSUE GREATER TRANSATLANTIC REGULATORY & TAX HARMONIZATION, AND A WEAKENING OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION & ITS ACCOMPANYING BILL OF RIGHTS ???]

[WHAT EUROBAMA MEANS TO SAY IS THAT, GETTING HELP FROM EUROPE ON ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY & TAX MATTERS, WILL PERMIT A DEMOCRATIC WHITE HOUSE AND DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS TO 'PAINT THE TOWN (WASHINGTON) & THE NATION GREEN'].
"If we have more NATO troops in Afghanistan, then that's potentially fewer American troops over the long term," he said, "which means we're spending fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in making sure we're providing tax cuts to middle-class families who are struggling with higher gas prices ... that will have an impact on our economy." Watch Obama explain why he's in Berlin three months before the election »

Obama was asked about criticism by the campaign of his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, that the Berlin speech was a "premature victory lap."

"I'll leave it up to the pundits to theorize on that," Obama responded. "I would point out that John McCain, after he won the nomination, met with all the leaders that I am meeting with, that he has made speeches in Colombia and Canada and Mexico. ...

"I would be hard pressed to find a big difference between what I've done over the last week and what John McCain has been doing since he won the nomination."


"Just you got more attention?" Crowley asked.


"I did," Obama replied with a smile.

Obama left for Paris later Friday for a visit with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The Illinois Democrat is in the middle of a multi-nation tour in an effort to boost his foreign policy credentials.


Obama, accompanied by fellow Sens. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, has visited Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and the West Bank, and Germany. He will visit Great Britain after his meeting with Sarkozy.


The meetings are meant "to send the message that Americans want to partner with these countries in order for us to be successful, and also to relieve some of the burden on our fighting men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq," Obama said.


Asked if he saw his trip as some sort of rebuke against President Bush's foreign policy, Obama said that was not his intention.


"That is not my job on this trip. I think that, if you look at how we've tried to conduct this trip, that I have tried to abide by a rule that has been historically, I think, very important -- which is that whatever political differences we have, we have one government at a time, and that when public officials like myself, who are not the president, travel overseas, that we are not in the business of spending all our time second-guessing our president," he said.

• On criticism that he didn't spend enough time observing the situation of Palestinians:

"Obviously you make some judgments in terms of where you are going to allocate the day. But I don't think, if you look at my statements and my positions when it comes to Israeli and Palestinian peace talks, that I could be more clear about the belief that the Palestinian people are suffering -- partly because of the failures of their government to provide leadership for them.

"And that one of the reasons that we need to bring about this kind of lasting peace is so that Palestinians can have economic opportunity, send their kids to school -- enjoy the sort of prosperity that I think is so important for them as well as the Israelis."

• On Israel allowing new home construction in the West Bank:

"The Israelis, sitting down with the Palestinians in Annapolis and in previous agreements, have recognized that these settlements are not helpful. And I think it is important for the Israelis to abide by their commitments when it comes to settlements, in the same way that the Palestinians abide by their commitments for cracking down on terrorists in the West Bank. ... The key is for both parties to do what they say and build trust and confidence so they can move forward.

• On why his trip didn't include a visit to a mosque:

"We have jammed about as much as we could have in a week, but in terms of our Muslim outreach back in America, in terms of my consistent message, it's always been that I have the deepest respect for the Muslim community.

"One of the things I want to do in my first year in office is convene a summit of Muslim countries, so that some of the suspicions and mistrust that has developed between the United States and the Muslim world can be broken down. We're going to need the help of all people of goodwill -- especially Muslims of goodwill -- if we are going to solve some of these problems."

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Anti-Federalist Australian Legislator Calls for Constitutional Amendment To Do Away With States' (Individual) Rights

http://news.theage.com.au/national/abbott-wants-states-stripped-of-powers-20080710-3cow.html

Abbott wants states stripped of powers


Australian Associated Press


July 10, 2008


The federal government should be given powers to strip the states of theirs, opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott says.


Mr Abbott said the strengthening of federal powers is the only way to tackle what he called the "dysfunctional federation", responsible for the constant buck-passing between the commonwealth and states.


Mr Abbott will argue for a referendum to enact the changes in a book he hopes to publish next year, Fairfax newspapers said.


"I will be arguing for a constitutional amendment to establish that, where it so wishes, the commonwealth can pass laws to override the states - not just Section 51 as it is now, but in all areas," he said.


"We need to face the fact that we are a nation today, not a federation of states, and we need to clearly establish in law that, when it comes to the crunch, the federal government is in charge." [THIS IS TANTAMOUNT TO REPLACING RULE OF LAW WITH RULE BY LAW (RULE OF MEN)].


Mr Abbott said the federal government was hamstrung by the states, and often had to offer bribes to get their support.


"The electorate wants problems solved and they don't want a treatise on why the relevant level of government can't solve a problem because it lacks the power," he said.


[THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A UTILITARIAN PRETENSE FOR DOING AWAY WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF STATES, OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS PROTECTED BY THE STATES. WITHOUT A BILL OF RIGHTS, THE BUREAUCRATS CAN FAVOR COMMUNAL OVER INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS, CONSISTENT WITH JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU'S 'GENERAL WILL' POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY THAT TODAY GOVERNS MUCH OF THE EUROPEAN CONTINENT].


[IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE 10 & 11TH AMENDMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ACCOMPANYING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ALONG WITH OTHER ENUMERATED INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (e.g., CONTAINED IN THE 5TH, 6TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, AMONG OTHERS), SERVE THIS VERY PURPOSE.]


[THE ABSENCE OF ANY BILL OF RIGHTS ACCOMPANYING THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION LEAVES THE CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA EXPOSED TO PRECISELY THE TYPE OF SWEEPING PROPOSAL NOW BEING RECOMMENDED BY MR. ABBOTT. See: The Hon Mr Justice David Malcolm AC, Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?, Comment Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law Volume 5, Number 3 (Sept. 1998) at: http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v5n3/malcolm53.html ].


"The federal government is hamstrung by the legal authority that resides in the states.


"Where the federal government needs to take charge, it shouldn't need to bribe the states to do so - and it only operates as long as the bribe is in place."


Mr Abbott admitted the treatise, which will form part of the book provisionally titled Conservatism After Howard, was part of a future bid for the Liberal leadership.


"I accept that I'm unlikely to be leader any time soon but I think I have reasonable credentials to be considered for the leadership at some point and I hope I can burnish my credentials," he said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/29/2018239.htm

Courts 'becoming irrelevant' without bill of rights


ABC News Australia


August 29, 2007


Internationally-recognised human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC says Australia's courts are becoming irrelevant because of the lack of a bill of rights.


Last night in Sydney, Mr Robertson addressed the Australia's Right to Know coalition - a group of major media companies, including the ABC, who argue that press freedoms are becoming increasingly limited in Australia.


Mr Robertson says Australia's failure to adopt a bill of rights may explain why the nation has been ranked low in two recent surveys about the freedom of the press.


He says courts in other progressive liberal democracies are able to argue for first principles from bills of rights, in which there are freedom of expression clauses.


"The Australian courts... whose judgements were once cited all the time, are becoming less relevant to that because Australia is the only country without a bill of rights," he said.


This morning, Mr Robertson told ABC 702 Local Radio host Virginia Trioli that Australia was behind not only Britain and the US on press freedom but also less developed countries like Bolivia, San Marino and Malta.


"Our rating is number 39 [in the world] and slipping in terms of press freedom. We've got to find some reason for this," he said.


"We are alone amongst advanced liberal democracies in not having a bill of rights which has a presumption in favour of freedom of expression.


"That produces the situation where in New South Wales alone you have over 1,000 suppression orders."


He says the Freedom of Information Act has become irrelevant over 20 years, while journalists are offered no protection against being ordered to reveal their sources.


Mr Robertson has also condemned reforms under which legal action will be allowed to be taken against groups that call for boycotts of Australian products.


He says Australia inherited a flawed legal system from Britain but has failed to draw inspiration from the country's later democratic reforms.


"It's all down to the British judges in the 19th century, who crafted laws of defamation and contempt in order to protect themselves..." he said.


"I think we're mugs to keep the laws that the British themselves have abandoned."


But Mr Robertson says press freedom needs to be balanced with the right to privacy in Australia.


"You can muckrake with private tittle-tattle as much as you like because there's no protection against misuse of personal information," he said.


"On the other hand, there are 101 suppression orders and ways in which news gathering, of genuine news, is prohibited."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/159.html

Should Australia have a Bill of Rights? - Time for debate


By Ron Dyer


Recent history causes Ron Dyer to change his mind.



The question of whether Australia, and for that matter the Australian states, should have a Bill of Rights enacted is coming under increasing examination. This especially is the case against a background of increasingly draconian security or 'anti-terrorism' laws. The traditional response to those who have argued for a Bill of Rights in the past has been that Australians can rely on our traditional and proud background of respect for civil liberties and the democratic freedoms of the individual citizen or resident of Australia. It has often been asserted that the protection of our rights can be safely left to our parliamentary representatives and that to legislate for a Bill of Rights would distort our system of government by giving unelected judges too much influence over how our democracy develops.


However, this traditional response has been questioned by those who point out that Australia now is in an arguably anomalous position, when we compare ourselves to other democratic countries. Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and South Africa all have Bills of Rights in some form or another, while Australia does not. In November 1999 the then New South Wales Attorney-General the Hon Jeff Shaw QC referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Justice of the NSW Legislative Council, then chaired by me, the question whether it would be appropriate and in the public interest to enact a statutory, as distinct from a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights in NSW. The committee reported in October 2001, after an exhaustive inquiry which included public hearings and a review of models of Bills of Rights in the countries mentioned above.


The Committee found against a Bill of Rights for NSW, substantially on the basis that such a Bill would undermine the roles of both Parliament and the Courts. The rationale for this decision was that a Bill of Rights would derogate from parliamentary supremacy and also lead to a politicisation of the judiciary. It was felt that parliamentary representatives are directly elected by and accountable to the people, in a way that unelected judges cannot be, though they do give detailed reasons in writing for their decisions. The Standing Committee also found that uncertainty is unavoidable in a Bill of Rights which traditionally, and perhaps inevitably, specify rights in brief, general terms, such as a right to freedom of speech, without taking account of detailed countervailing factors, which in this example would include defamation or racial vilification. Thus, it was felt that the judiciary is then left in the position of "filling in the gaps" and in effect legislating by finding what is the appropriate decision and remedy in a given fact situation arising under a Bill of Rights.


It must be conceded that the committee inquiry I chaired occurred against a background of strong opposition to the concept of a Bill of Rights expressed publicly by the then NSW Premier, the Hon Bob Carr, who also forwarded a detailed submission to the Standing Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee was sincere in the views it expressed. It recommended, as an alternative to Bill of Rights, a NSW Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, which was intended, among other matters, to raise parliamentarians' awareness of their responsibility to protect human rights. Such a Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was in fact set up following the Standing Committee's report.


In the years that have followed the above inquiry in which I participated, I have had cause to revise my views very substantially. I had always held the opinion that parliaments in Australia could be trusted to preserve individual freedoms and not diminish them by enacting draconian legislation. My confidence in this regard has been eroded, if not destroyed, by recent State and Federal legislation in Australia characterised as 'anti-Terrorism laws.' It seems to me that these laws go well beyond the proper limits that should apply in a liberal democracy. They certainly call into question my hitherto long-held belief that Australian parliaments could always be relied upon to be a bulwark against encroachment upon our democratic freedoms.


To illustrate my concern, I refer to the Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 (Commonwealth). This legislation, together with complementary legislation enacted by the Australian States and Territories, contains quite extraordinary preventive detention and policing powers. We are told by those in authority, including the Prime Minister, the Commonwealth Attorney-General and State Premiers, that these newly-enacted powers are necessary to meet a perceived terrorist threat. Yet the terrorist threat assessment remains to the present time at 'medium', which was the level set on 12 September 2001 following the terrorist attacks in the USA. If there is no increased threat, why is legislation containing greatly increased powers necessary? Why also has the Parliament enacted additional measures to deal with terrorism when reviews of already enacted legislation following 9/11 have not been completed and assessed? There seems to be an irrational rush to vest ever-increasing powers in various policing authorities, with little or no public justification by governments.


As my confidence in the ability and willingness of most parliamentarians to stand against the removal of democratic freedoms has been eroded, I believe that one's thoughts must turn to the role that an independent judiciary can play in the preservation of these freedoms. In my view, there needs to be a basic law of some sort against which legislation threatening civil liberties can be measured.


From my perspective, constitutionally entrenched Bills of Rights such as the US Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are excessively rigid. There are quite notorious examples of this in the US Bill of Rights, such as the constitutional right to bear arms and the apparent inability of the Congress to effectively deal with the law and order problems thrown up by the widespread availability and use of firearms. In Canada corporations, as well as individuals, are able to take advantage of the rights enacted by the Charter. It has been argued that this has made the task of corporate regulation in Canadian jurisdictions problematic.


The model I consider most attractive for use in the Australian context is the UK Human Rights Act, 1998. Like Australia, Britain had an historical attachment to the protection of human rights through the common law. However, Britain's engagement with the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union, especially since the UK accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court in 1966, has changed Britain's outlook radically. A series of decisions by the European Court had overruled English courts on the basis that there were breaches of the European Convention of Human Rights.


The UK Human Rights Act is often referred to as a "dialogue" model in that a higher court is able to make a declaration that legislation is incompatible with European Convention rights. This initiates a dialogue between the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive government. The declaration of incompatibility allows a Minster to seek parliamentary approval for a remedial order to amend legislation to make it compatible. It is true that the declaration of incompatibility can be ignored by the Executive government. In this case the legislation remains valid. However, to do this will often invite political embarrassment for a government.


Perhaps the most useful aspect of the UK Human Rights Act is that a Minister must, before the Second Reading of a Bill in either House, either (a) make a statement of compatibility with European Convention rights or (b) make a statement to the effect that, although he or she is unable to make a statement of compatibility, the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill. The practical effect of this provision is to require government departments and agencies to undertake a formal review in relation to Convention rights when preparing legislation or regulations. Ministers may introduce legislation incompatible with Convention rights, but the Human Rights Act obliges the Minister to explain to Parliament why the rights have been ignored.


Clearly, if the UK model were to be adopted in Australia, there would have to be a yardstick - as there is with the European Convention on Human Rights - against which the proposed legislation could be measured. That is, there would have to be an Australian Human Rights Act, called by this or some other similar title.


The Evatt Foundation believes that the question of a Bill of Rights for Australia is one which warrants public attention and debate. If you have any relevant views, please feel free to express your opinion.