May 30th 2009


  Buy Issue 2804
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

CLIMATE CHANGE: Solar inactivity points to further global cooling

EDITORIAL: Australia's biggest financial scam?

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Next generation to pay for Swan Budget

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Fund infrastructure with a development bank

DEFENCE WHITE PAPER: Glaring flaw at heart of government defence thinking

ASIA: Will China "liberate" the South China Sea?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: US auto industry meltdown highlights financial collapse

UNITED KINGDOM: Unrestrained greed caused banking crisis

HUMAN RIGHTS: A bill of rights will diminish our freedoms

ILLICIT DRUGS: Cannabis use linked to suicide, schizophrenia

EDUCATION: The Frankfurt School and the war on the West

OPINION: The forgotten factor: land prices

Bill of rights vs. common law (letter)

Beware of 'Plimer contrarianism' (letter)

CINEMA: Cold War metaphor encoded in vampire movie

BOOKS: THE HORNET'S STING: The Amazing Untold Story of WWII Spy Thomas Sneum, by Mark Ryan

BOOKS: HEROES: From Alexander the Great to Mae West, by Paul Johnson

Books promotion page
FONT SIZE:

Bill of rights vs. common law (letter)


by Lucy Sullivan

News Weekly, May 30, 2009
Sir,

Professor David Flint AM ("A successful conservative party ready to rebuild", News Weekly, November 22, 2008) was absolutely right to oppose the introduction of a bill of rights which will, in Australia, stand in opposition to the democratic endorsement of our country's laws as achieved under the Westminster system.

It was the intrusion of the European and American concept of generalised, theoretical rights, supervised by the judiciary, that opened the way to the current judicial arrogation of the government's legislative powers. A bill of rights would exacerbate this cancer of our legal system.

Appeal to theoretical rights is also lethal to the operation of the common law, which deals far better with the reality that individuals' rights are so often in conflict with one another.

The body of common law, stretching over centuries, has evolved a "best practice" as to how to proceed when rights conflict, e.g., which of them should be given precedence, to what extent, and in what circumstances.

The ad hoc deliberation of a presiding judge is no match for the evolved wisdom of centuries as regards what constitutes the general good when conflicts of rights occur.

A case taken to court in the US in the early days of IVF and embryo freezing illustrates the problems that can arise when rights are disengaged from their long expression in common law.

A couple who had stored an embryo subsequently separated. The husband married again, and asserted his right in the embryo for implantation in his new wife (this having become, for some reason, his only chance of having his own child).

His former wife, however, asserted her right in the embryo to prevent this proceeding.

How does one decide between these two equal and opposite rights purely on the basis of a bill of rights enshrining the parents' rights, individually, to control their fertility, pursue their happiness etc?

After a series of conflicting decisions, the issue was finally decided by recourse to case law, the precedent being that the mother has priority in the care and custody of a couple's children - the embryo's potentiality being judged analogous to a born child.

This tested and practised precedent of itself brought a sense of proper resolution to what had seemed an intractable competition between identical inviolable rights.

A further substantial advantage of remaining with the common law is that, unlike a bill of rights, it gives guidance to the individual on how to proceed in cases of conflict - when to insist on a right through the courts and when, in the name of sanity, to relinquish it.

Lucy Sullivan,
Windsor, NSW




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

COVER STORY Don't grieve dumped TPP; rather, thank Trump

ENVIRONMENT U.S. Congress to investigate shonky climate report

COVER STORY Money flows freely to fuel anti-coal campaign

ENVIRONMENT Ignore claims that Antarctic ice sheet will melt away

EDITORIAL What future has Senator Cory Bernardi?

EDITORIAL Commission report demonstrates old saying about statistics

ELECTRICITY Green policies threaten energy security and jobs



News and views from around the world

Scientists criticise "hottest year on record" hype (James Varney)

States, territories slash school funding by $100 million (Stephanie Balogh)

Confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (Stephen Mosher)

Rescuing Governor Ahok (Bob Lowry)

Future shock: What happens when robots take our jobs? (Adam Creighton)

President Trump: Protect religious freedom (Ryan Anderson)

China to crack down further on "cult" activities (Ben Blanchard)

Polish president rules out gay marriage (Radio Poland)

U.S. state legislatures sign 334 laws in five years to restrict abortion (Micaiah Bilger)

Clinton, Trump and the politics of the English language (Ben Reinhard)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am