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

survey link

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

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

Frequently asked questions about section 18C (Simon Breheny)

Chilean legislators kill explicit sex-ed program (LifeSite News)

France to ban people with Down syndrome from smiling (The Huffington Post)

Child abuse and family structure: What is the evidence telling us (Family First NZ)

Woolworths beats ACCC supplier mistreatment case (Eli Greenblat)

Australia set to ride the quantum computing wave (Science in Public)

Weatherill warns states could introduce carbon prices (Rosie Lewis)

Green-left legerdemain doesn't make religion relevant (Fr James Grant)

Mass murderer Castro dies unpunished (Augusto Zimmermann)

The rise of political correctness (Angelo Codevilla)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm