Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Written Constitution | |
Author: David (Australia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:40:16 11/22/04 Mon In reply to: Dave (UK) 's message, "Indeed..." on 11:33:11 11/22/04 Mon I completely agree that you need a written constitution. Written constitution's limit extremist governments and ensure that governments do not abuse their powers (as is the present day case in Britain). It is frankly quite scary some of the things Tony Blair has got away with - particulary on EU related issues, such behaviour would never be tolerated in Australia. We have never really had a government that has been grossly disrespectful to our institutions and processes in the way of Tony Blair (except perhaps the 1972-1975 Whitlam government). The Hawke and Keating governments were to some degree, although what they could do was limited by the Australian constitution and thus the consent of the Australian people, they did not inflict a large amount of damage. I am also concerned about new legislation being introduced (particulary in the area of terrorism) that intrudes upon civil liberties, for this reason I support a bill of rights. Britain's parliamentary system demands that the Monarch stand up to protect the people from an extremist government, this is clearly unacceptable in a modern world which is why Britain needs a constitution and bill of rights. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Bills of rights... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:46:17 11/22/04 Mon We have a bill of rights - indeed, we have many such things, the principle ones on the statue book being Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill. The trouble is that, without a written consitution, any Act can be made which supercedes these pieces of legislation. When Hurd signed the Maastricht Treaty, Richard Body and Rodney Atkinson tried to have him indicted for Treason according to the presrciptions of various of these Acts. The courts threw out the case, on the grounds that the unwritten 'constitution' means that any subsequent piece of legislation simply cancels out any previous contradicting ones. As has been stated here, this works fine when we have a moderate government - as we have always had until now. But now that our way of life and independence etc are under threat, there is a very strong case for having a written constitution. Write it down, nail the buggers to it, and they can't fool around with it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh My God! | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:03:37 11/22/04 Mon The Queen’s speech contains some more horrors. In addition to the juryless trials, Blunket is seeking to bring prosecutions on "suspected" foreign terrorists, despite the fact that they have committed no crime in the eyes of the law. If the terrorists are seeking to destroy our democracy, they are succeeding. This is a literal case of the blind leading the blind! If foreign suspects are believed to be up to no good, then by all means deport them, but stop screwing around with our legal system. Of course, we can’t deport them, because that we contravene their “human rights”. What a farce! I have a sneaky suspicion though that the European Court of Human rights will come into play here. This is something that the Labour Government couldn’t wait to sign up for. Hopefully we will get to see them hoisted by their own petard! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The way to preserve democracy is not to stuff it under the carpet everytime it gets annoying. Both the US and the UK could learn from this. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:24:16 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Petards | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:35:15 11/22/04 Mon I believe that this has already happened. Do you remember a few years ago, when the government signed up to the European Court of Human Rights (ECRH), and the next month legislated to detail all asylum seekers in secure 'camps' while their applications were considered? It didn't matter that the camps had free food, free housing, satellite TV, free English lessons, free solicitors, comfy rooms (frankly I think I'd like to live in one), because, according to ECHR legislation, not allowing them out of the extensive, land-scaped, park-like grounds by enclosing it with a high-fense contravened their human rights, since it had not been proved at this point that they had committed the 'crime' of illegal entry. So, they had to let them all out (they've all disappeared, of course), and demolish the camps which cost hundreds of millions of pounds... That, I think, is being hoist by one's own petard. But did the blighters learn? Nope. Here they are, trying something similar with terrorists, and exactly the same thing will happen: convicted in London, cleared in Strasbourg, and so let free, because, of course, as members of ECHR Strasbourg takes precedence. It is ironic that, for once, I think that ECHR would be in the right: you can't muck around with trial by jury and habeas corpus... it's just not a straight bat. Such a shame that ECHR's other rulings are all awful. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh yes, and... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:39:03 11/22/04 Mon Interesting parallel with the House of Lords reform (another iniquitious piece of legislation). It happened just after the H of L gave a favourable ruling about the extradition of that bastard Pinochet. Labour said that, no matter that the old Lords had, in this case, done the right thing, it didn't alter the fundamental principle that it shouldn't be them doing it. I think that this could apply to the ECHR's presumption in stopping Blunkett from imposing totalitarian South African style anti-terrorist measures. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: How ironic then... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:50:42 11/23/04 Tue ... that we should come to rely on European institutions in order to preserve our legal charter! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: to be fair, Keating introduced the reforms that have made the Australian economy competitive over the last two decades | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:11:46 11/22/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Keating | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:07:21 11/23/04 Tue True, in the area of economic policy the Hawke and Keating governments have an impressive record and pursued important reforms (although these reforms only really reversed the damage inflicted by successive post-war governments). Unlike Britain, most of the economic reform in Australia has been pursued by the Labor party. In other areas of policy, however, such as respect for the Monarchy and other institutions, their record is less impressive. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |