May 30th 2009

  Buy Issue 2804

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

Bill of rights vs. common law (letter)

by Lucy Sullivan

News Weekly, May 30, 2009

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

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am