We can do everything that's not illegal. Which is a lot of things. This puts onus on the govt to prove that you have committed a wrong. Things like freedom of speech etc. are allowed if there is no legislation against it.
The Australian Capital Territory has a Bill of Rights.
You have to look at the context behind the Constitution. It was a facilitating document for federalism and outlines separation of powers and other such things. It wasn't to outline rights.
A Bill of Rights will become anachronistic. Like the American Bill of Rights. For example, the right to bear arms. That right was enacted so that people could defend their property from American Indians, and the British, and the Mexicans. But now, people just buy them to feel safe, even though if a robber comes into the house, it would be highly unlikely that they would be able to grab their guns and shoot up the robbers.
More to this case, not sure what the law is over there, but it is 50/50 for me. It could go either way. It depends on whether the judge is more Ralph Nader or Jeremy Clarkson.
__________________
One stumble does not constitute total failure;
One victory does not constitute total success.
|
Threaded Mode
