First, thank you for the honest responce Wom.

There has to be a limit to "freedoms". Duties of people are just as important as their rights.
I'm very happy to live under a system which doesn't have a Bill of Rights. I can't speak for Europeans, but I can certainly speak on behalf of Australians.
I believe that the majority of Aussies would prefer that to. Freedoms here are assumed, they have no need to be stated in some document, and we don't have the problems that such a document brings. There have been a number of times here that proponents of a Bill of Rights have tried to introduce that document, but it has failed every time.
It is very interesting that you (and obviously other Australians) are OK with the simple 'assumption' of rights. Granted, Natural law already grants the certain rights to mankind, it need not be written down. But, sadly, mankind is sinful. (Or, if you prefer, hasa tendancy to selfishness or evil.) So all it would take to deny you your natural rights is the political will to make it so and a population willing to let it happen.

That is a LOT of trust to put in people who have power over you.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/r...-02/02rn42.htm

Also, are you saying you would rather be 'safe' than free? No, I'm not saying that, in my opinion I'd rather have both, and I already do.....again without the problems of a Bill of Rights.

In Australia, where parliamentary democracy usually works reasonably well, we can trust the legislators. If they do not act justly, particularly if they act oppressively, they will be dismissed from office at the next election. This is how our democracy works.

A Bill of Rights here would, as in the United States, politicize the Courts. It would amount to, or produce, a form of judicial imperialism. It would transfer great power from the elected representatives of the people in all their variety, to the judges. But the judges are unelected.

A Bill of Rights entrenches attitudes to rights which become out of date with changing times. I have stated that in all threads on this subject that I have posted on. Any Bill of Rights drawn today would soon be out of date.
Freedom of Speech could become outdated? Right to face your accuser? Right to self defence?

What society thinks is important certainly does change. Natural LAW does not. That's why it is LAW.



"See, who gets to define "abuse"? You? The government? Society?"
We all do.
Isn't that exactly where your Madison was coming from ??? He was reluctant to draft a Bill of rights in the first place.........who defines the rights of the people ??? Him ???
"We all do". So, if society suddenly decides its OK to discriminate against, say the Aboriginals, good? The tyranny of the masses is still tryanny. Ask Ancient Greece.

That is my biggest beef with NOT having a written BOR. It makes everything relative in a black and white world. The 'progressive' types can try to (and often succeed) in convincing society that up is down. Just because the masses say something or believe something does not make it so. Thats the cool thing about the truth... Its the TRUTH. Why not write it down?

Also, no, Madison was quite in favor of a Bill of Rights. He fought for it agsint those who did not want a written BOR.

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html