Does America have any extra freedoms?

[EthiopianFood]

Ah... but you see.. that's a difference in mentality. Whereas YOU think "I don't want to pay for someone else to get services" WE think "it's good we all pay for everyone's services."

 

I don't expect you to like that, or to even get that, but there is a fundamental difference in the way that citizens of countries like Canada and Australia think about each other and about government funded services than Americans do. It is not something we can really explain to you. *I* did not get it when I first moved here, but seeing it in action and benefitting from this way of thinking for 15+ years.... I do get it now, and fully embrace the egalitarianism and compassion of it.

 

We were just talking about freedom though. You may think it is a good thing to do this, but you are still forced to do it even if you didn't. I wasn't arguing if it was desirable or not. On a personal level, I actually agree with this line of thinking. At the same time, I am told I shouldn't feel this way because it is only giving the government more control over us to tell us what to do. It comes down to the role of government, not whether we should support one another. But again, this is getting off topic. :tongue_smilie:

[Audrey]

this is getting off topic. :tongue_smilie:

 

You're right. My bad.

[Melissa in Australia]

A freedom I can think of that US citizens have and we in Australia don't and that I would actually like to have, is the freedom to not vote. Compulsory voting is only enforced in very few countries, and I believe it is a significant curtailment of my freedom, because if there is no political candidate of whom I approve, I am forced to vote for somebody who does not represent my views.

 

.

 

Ah hotdrink, you don't have to vote. I registered for voting at 18 as is the law, and have never ever voted. when the slip comes in the mail to see why I haven't voted, I just jot down some bible verses. they think I am some funny religious nut and leave me alone.

:lol:

[EthiopianFood]

You're right. My bad.

 

Mine too. It's so easy to do though! :tongue_smilie:

[Peela]

Ever since I moved here to America (almost 10 years ago now), I have said that I felt that most Americans in general 1) Don't tend to know much about the rest of the world (people on this board seem to be more educated than the general population). 2) Think their constitution provides them with all this freedom that other countries don't get.

 

I have felt like there's a certain ignorance over here. People in the US are inside this bubble, where they think that whats here is so much better than everywhere else and it really isn't. Sure some things are better, but some things are worse. Its just different, you know?

 

 

Yes, that is my impression also.

And there is no tyrrany greater than thinking one is freer than one is!

The OP is obviously re-evaluating her assumptions but I think her assumptions are common. That is cultural conditoning and we all have it- Americans just have strong conditioning around freedom. I think the rest of us probably take our freedom a bit more for granted though.

Although I think many Americans realise their freedoms are being eroded...it's happening everywhere.

 

And I would also like the freedom not to vote. I never understood what a freedom that was until someone explained to me that if you "have" to vote, all the people who dont care, who havent studied the candidates, who are superficially influenced by the media...get their say just because they have to tick some box. When you dont have to vote, the people who are passionate about their opinions, vote. I think you would end up with a better quality of candidate. But thats jsut theory :)

Not that I would want the American system of government :)

[Mamasteff]

While I would agree that many, many Americans are knowingly or unknowingly terribly jingoistic and inward-looking, there are different perspectives on what freedom is. Most Americans were raised "pledging allegiance to the flag." The pledge was actually a poem written after the Spanish-American war but when faced with the "creeping menace of Communism" post-WWII, Congress decided to require each public school student to begin the school day with a declaration of national loyalty and unity. So, basically, we are taught to think we are the best and from a very young age are daily drilled with the idea that we are "more free."

 

That said,

... I also have the impression that we have a more extensive freedom of speech and of the press then some countries.

 

I remember being completely shocked while living in England that the queen could just TELL (threaten) the press to stop printing certain types of stories and, at least for a while, they did.

 

I also remember being told in Morocco that they had "freedom of religion," which to the speakers meant "the freedom to convert TO Islam from any other religion." The freedom to convert FROM Islam, however, was not a part of their understanding of "freedom of religion."

 

So it all comes down to what your culture has taught you to value. If you have that, then you have freedom.

[keptwoman]

I remember being completely shocked while living in England that the queen could just TELL (threaten) the press to stop printing certain types of stories and, at least for a while, they did.

That's more about honour and respect than compulsion though. The press still have the freedom to print the stuff, but they respect and honour the monarchy enough (at least on the outside LOL) not to.

[Melissa in Australia]

While I would agree that many, many Americans are knowingly or unknowingly terribly jingoistic and inward-looking, there are different perspectives on what freedom is. Most Americans were raised "pledging allegiance to the flag." The pledge was actually a poem written after the Spanish-American war but when faced with the "creeping menace of Communism" post-WWII, Congress decided to require each public school student to begin the school day with a declaration of national loyalty and unity. So, basically, we are taught to think we are the best and from a very young age are daily drilled with the idea that we are "more free."

 

.

 

Isn't that called brainwashing?

[Melissa in Australia]

And I would also like the freedom not to vote. I never understood what a freedom that was until someone explained to me that if you "have" to vote, all the people who dont care, who havent studied the candidates, who are superficially influenced by the media...get their say just because they have to tick some box. When you dont have to vote, the people who are passionate about their opinions, vote. I think you would end up with a better quality of candidate. But thats jsut theory :)

Not that I would want the American system of government :)

 

I have wondered if the reason everyone 'has ' to vote is because if it was optional, then nobody would bother.

I personally wouldn't want the American system of voting. I don't really understand how it works, but it looks , from my limited understanding, that the person who can raise the most money wins. I am sure I have it all wrong though.

[chaik76]

:lurk5:

[KJB]

Note the worldwide decline of monarchs since 1776. The American revolution didn't just revolutionize America....

 

So, to compare, I think it's not fair to ignore America's role in creating a world where freedom is valued. Many countries mentioned in this very thread are places where many people immigrated from in search of more freedom and opportunity.

 

And people are still crossing that ocean (or border) in search of a dream. So, plenty of people still believe they will find more freedom or at the very least, more *opportunity* in America than in their own (or any other) country.

[Peela]

Note the worldwide decline of monarchs since 1776. The American revolution didn't just revolutionize America....

 

 

 

See, to us non Americans, that is a very "American-centric" way of looking at things. Truth is, I dont know the complete details of the effect of the American War of Independence on the rest of the world...but Im pretty sure much of Europe itself was also moving toward less power to the monarchy, more power to the government...not sure there is a cause and effect thing there with America ....I am thinking it was more a sign of the times, a general movement in that direction in many countries. That is how I perceive it anyway- American's revolution was a reflection of the times, not the cause of them. But I think Americans might be taught differently.

[KJB]

See, to us non Americans, that is a very "American-centric" way of looking at things. Truth is, I dont know the complete details of the effect of the American War of Independence on the rest of the world...but Im pretty sure much of Europe itself was also moving toward less power to the monarchy, more power to the government...not sure there is a cause and effect thing there with America ....I am thinking it was more a sign of the times, a general movement in that direction in many countries. That is how I perceive it anyway- American's revolution was a reflection of the times, not the cause of them. But I think Americans might be taught differently.

 

First, I do not apologize for sounding or being "American-centric". I suppose I should preface my words by stating that outright. I am American. I am proud to be American. I don't want the world to have a vote on who governs the country I love. I live abroad and I see daily how life in the US is more free.

 

The *foundation* of the US is built on people who left their own countries in search of a better place. We are a country of immigrants.

 

America's first citizens, after the Native Americans, were primarily European. The people you are speaking of left their countries to populate the US in search of (initially) religious *freedom*. The trip across the ocean wasn't an easy one and they didn't immigrate and leave their countries, their families, and all that they knew because it looked like their own countries were leaning that way.

 

(FWIW, the tone here should be spirited and friendly. I appreciate and value your opinion, Peela.)

[WishboneDawn]

Is Canada at least as diverse?

 

34% of our population are minorities. From the statistics I found the number appears to be 16% in Canada. Numbers are looked at a little differently by the two countries.

 

What's you're definition of minority. We basically have another nation inside our borders - Quebec. That makes for some diversity. If you've restricted the definition the ethnicity or colour you may be right but I'd argue that's not a good definition.

Edited January 16, 2010 by WishboneDawn

[TravelingChris]

We have the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of RIghts and right now I can't think of any other countries that have those exact rights. Specifically the free speech, free press and the right to trial by jury of your peers. I know that both England and Canada have issues with the free press that I find completely unappealing- suing authors for libelous speech if they right a political tome, banning books, etc. Many European countries have trial by a panel of judges and you are not presumed innocent.

[WishboneDawn]

Ah... but you see.. that's a difference in mentality. Whereas YOU think "I don't want to pay for someone else to get services" WE think "it's good we all pay for everyone's services."

 

Indeed, I'd even think of it as a type of freedom we have that Americans don't. A communal one rather then individual. Trouble is, some people can't see past the individual bit.

[WishboneDawn]

We have the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of RIghts and right now I can't think of any other countries that have those exact rights. Specifically the free speech, free press and the right to trial by jury of your peers. I know that both England and Canada have issues with the free press that I find completely unappealing- suing authors for libelous speech if they right a political tome, banning books, etc. Many European countries have trial by a panel of judges and you are not presumed innocent.

 

? People can sue for libel in the US.

[KJB]

See, to us non Americans, that is a very "American-centric" way of looking at things. Truth is, I dont know the complete details of the effect of the American War of Independence on the rest of the world...but Im pretty sure much of Europe itself was also moving toward less power to the monarchy, more power to the government...not sure there is a cause and effect thing there with America ....I am thinking it was more a sign of the times, a general movement in that direction in many countries. That is how I perceive it anyway- American's revolution was a reflection of the times, not the cause of them. But I think Americans might be taught differently.

 

Peela,

 

I've been thinking about your post. I wanted to add, you are probably right that their was a general western European movement or desire to attain more freedom around the time of the American revolution.

 

The key thing, imo, was the early American's willingness to rebel and fight for freedom. I think American rebels gave fuel to the kindling of rebellion for freedom world wide.

 

I think this is one thing that makes American unique today. America (granted many of our reasons are related to self-interest/I am not claiming we're altruistic) is still willing to shed our own blood in the name of freedom (freedom for others and our own freedom, which are often related).

[Peela]

Peela,

 

I've been thinking about your post. I wanted to add, you are probably right that their was a general western European movement or desire to attain more freedom around the time of the American revolution.

 

The key thing, imo, was the early American's willingness to rebel and fight for freedom. I think American rebels gave fuel to the kindling of rebellion for freedom world wide.

 

Yes, thats quite possibly true...the human spirit seems to be ultimately irrepressible. People have also fought for their freedom since time began- the Native Americans obviously did, Boudacea did. It's a human quality.

 

I think this is one thing that makes American unique today. America (granted many of our reasons are related to self-interest/I am not claiming we're altruistic) is still willing to shed our own blood in the name of freedom (freedom for others and our own freedom, which are often related).

 

I am not sure how shedding their own own blood in self interest can be for freedom in reality, or just freedom in name and excuse...but I don't want to go there and completely derail the thread :)

[keptwoman]

The *foundation* of the US is built on people who left their own countries in search of a better place. We are a country of immigrants.

 

America's first citizens, after the Native Americans, were primarily European. {snip} The trip across the ocean wasn't an easy one and they didn't immigrate and leave their countries, their families, and all that they knew because it looked like their own countries were leaning that way.

 

(FWIW, the tone here should be spirited and friendly. I appreciate and value your opinion, Peela.)

The same could be said of many countries. People left Europe in droves looking for a better life in the new colonies.

I don't think people came to Australia or NZ for religious freedom. I know many of the first settlers to the US did. I'd be interested what percentage in the first century of immigration to the US had religious freedom in mind. I suspect many went simply for a better life.

 

Peela,

 

I've been thinking about your post. I wanted to add, you are probably right that their was a general western European movement or desire to attain more freedom around the time of the American revolution.

 

The key thing, imo, was the early American's willingness to rebel and fight for freedom. I think American rebels gave fuel to the kindling of rebellion for freedom world wide.

 

 

 

When we were learning about the American Revolution I found it fascinating that it never occured to Britian that an emerging nation of the size of America might actually want to be independent. And I'm sure the fact that the US fought for US independence certainly made the road to independence for other countries that followed including ours.

 

I don't think that makes the US more free or us less free but I'm happy to concede that you laid the path for us to follow with regards to freedom from English rule.

 

I think this is one thing that makes American unique today. America (granted many of our reasons are related to self-interest/I am not claiming we're altruistic) is still willing to shed our own blood in the name of freedom (freedom for others and our own freedom, which are often related).

Here I must disagree. I don't think you are unique at all in this. Many many countries work towards and shed blood fighting for the freedom for others and often with far more altruistic motives than the USA. You guys just don't hear about the work that other countries do all over the world in areas you don't even know about.

 

I live abroad and I see daily how life in the US is more free.

Could you explain how it's more free. Because that's the purpose of the thread and really I haven't seen that much to speak of yet that many if not most other countries don't share.

Edited January 16, 2010 by keptwoman

[pqr]

.You guys just don't hear about the work that other countries do all over the world in areas you don't even know about.

 

Wow, some of us actually do hear about it. An overly broad statement don't you think?

[Bev in B'ville]

I don't buy it. The whole freedom from government thing seems to come from an adversarial view of gov't, as if it's an other. The point of a democratic gov't is that it's us, it's the people. If Americans have lost that sense I don't think it bodes well for American democracy.

 

As a Canuck I do see our healthcare as a freedom because it's a gov't mandate. That means we the people have control over it rather then unaccountable corporate interests. Granted, if your view of freedoms is overwhelmingly defined by what's accorded to the individual then what I just wrote will seem non-sensical (or probably socialist :rolleyes:).

 

 

Just to clarify...we have a republic style of government, not a democratic one (from the Pledge of Allegiance: ....and to the republic for which it stands...). There is a difference.

[KJB]

Could you explain how it's more free. Because that's the purpose of the thread and really I haven't seen that much to speak of yet that many if not most other countries don't share.

 

Sure.

 

Where I live, off the top of my head:

 

1. Home schooling is illegal.

 

2. You can be held down and by force have your blood drawn if you're suspected of DUI. You have no right to refuse.

 

3. Taxes are high and on everything. People don't have closets because the state considers them an extra room and they are taxed on the number of rooms in their home. Houses sit unfinished but occupied because once finished the tax goes up.

 

4. Kids are tracked in about fourth grade and their future is greatly influenced. Not everyone has the opportunity to choose a college prep course of education.

 

5. It is not easy to impossible to "hang a shingle" for a business without state sanctioned education followed by state sanctioned license. In order to get a business license, you have to go through the hoops required by the state. You can't just open shop. (In other words, you can't be a piano teacher with a piano studio teaching young children without a state recognized education specifically for that occupation.)

 

 

Just a few....

[keptwoman]

Those are specific to the place you reside and understandably so. So I guess if you take any two countries there will be a long list of differences.

But many of those things you list are not universal to outside of the US in fact for most of those things Australia is more free than whereever you are too.

 

Not saying you are wrong at all. Just pondering outloud really. (while my neighbours teens have a party and I wait for it to calm so I can stop worrying about my DD asleep downstairs and go to bed... sigh)

[....]

KJB - where do you live? Germany? (just a guess)

[KJB]

 

 

Here I must disagree. I don't think you are unique at all in this. Many many countries work towards and shed blood fighting for the freedom for others and often with far more altruistic motives than the USA. You guys just don't hear about the work that other countries do all over the world in areas you don't even know about.

 

 

 

 

I worded this poorly and I apologize. I agree 100% that many other countries work towards and shed blood for freedom besides just the US. Not only do I agree, but I thank all countries who make this quest a priority.

 

I believe that the idea of a small militia taking on an empire in the name of freedom *and winning* was inspirational to the world quest for more individual liberty. This is the idea I meant to express.

Edited January 16, 2010 by KJB

[KJB]

Those are specific to the place you reside and understandably so. So I guess if you take any two countries there will be a long list of differences.

But many of those things you list are not universal to outside of the US in fact for most of those things Australia is more free than whereever you are too.

 

Not saying you are wrong at all. Just pondering outloud really. (while my neighbours teens have a party and I wait for it to calm so I can stop worrying about my DD asleep downstairs and go to bed... sigh)

 

 

I will say they get to drive faster than we do in America.:D

 

And there are many other wonderful things about where I live, but being "free(er)" ain't one of them....(Do you say ain't in Australia? Is it in your dictionary? As in ain't ain't in the dictionary? Probably best left for another thread or somethin'. :lol:)

 

OTOH, you can't drive a clunker unless you can afford the multiple specific/excessive/unnecessary repairs required to pass annual "safety" inspections.

 

This is very hard on my clunker loving husband, and not just on his pocketbook.

 

Hope the neighbor teens settled down, keptwoman! :grouphug:

[KJB]

KJB - where do you live? Germany? (just a guess)

 

ja Deutschland :001_smile:

[rookie]

I just thought of a freedom my dh enjoys in America that is definitely not available in France...........................................................................

the freedom to wear swim trunks! I kid you not. We were living in France and he took the dc to the local pool in his swim trunks (acceptable everywhere in the USA) and the lifeguard threw him out on the grounds of "TOO MUCH FABRIC." He would need to wear a Speedo! Well, DH was not about to buy a speedo but really wanted to swim. He went home, slipped on black undies, marched back to the pool and stood before the female lifeguard ;). She said, "Oui," and he swam in his undies all day long!

[....]

One side of my family is from Deutschland. It always looks so familiar and luring when I see pictures of it. Howdy! :cheers2:

[LizzyBee]

Just to clarify...we have a republic style of government' date=' not a democratic one (from the Pledge of Allegiance: ....and to the [b']republic[/b] for which it stands...). There is a difference.

 

Democracy in America is structured as a representative republic. Being a republic doesn't make us not a democracy.

[WishboneDawn]

Just to clarify...we have a republic style of government' date=' not a democratic one (from the Pledge of Allegiance: ....and to the [b']republic[/b] for which it stands...). There is a difference.

 

?

A republic is a form of democracy.

[Jean in Newcastle]

?

A republic is a form of democracy.

 

Yes, a form of democracy (there are other forms). To be accurate, we are a democratic republic.

[Big Buckin' Longhorn]

Sure.

 

Where I live, off the top of my head:

 

2. You can be held down and by force have your blood drawn if you're suspected of DUI. You have no right to refuse.

 

 

 

I know this has nothing to do with anything . . . but they have this in the part of Texas where I live and I am livid about it. I can't believe someone hasn't sued and gotten it overturned by now. I can't believe someone can take your bodily fluid against your will without knowing for sure that you've even done anything wrong. At least you have the right to refuse a breathalyzer but not the right to refuse having your blood drawn. AND they market them on the news like it's a big party . . . "We're having a no refusal weekend. Yah!" Crazies.

[KJB]

I know this has nothing to do with anything . . . but they have this in the part of Texas where I live and I am livid about it. I can't believe someone hasn't sued and gotten it overturned by now. I can't believe someone can take your bodily fluid against your will without knowing for sure that you've even done anything wrong. At least you have the right to refuse a breathalyzer but not the right to refuse having your blood drawn. AND they market them on the news like it's a big party . . . "We're having a no refusal weekend. Yah!" Crazies.

 

Well, what you've said raises an interesting point.

 

In America, we have the ability to *challenge* the law as a private citizen. We can challenge any law on the ground that the law itself is unconstitutional.

 

It is our system of "checks and balances" on the three major branches of government that ensures our rights.

 

Our president can't operate unilaterally without congress (only in special circumstances is this not true). Our congress can't pass laws that aren't constitutional (and if they *do* those laws can be challenged by anyone). Our court system is regulated in one major way through executive appointees to the Supreme Court, with approval by the Senate which is legislative, which has the ultimate responsibility of determining if laws are constitutional.

 

So, I would say, it is also our power as *private* citizens to challenge the government that makes us unique. Which, of course, is why we have the right to gun ownership. Our country is founded on the idea that if the government gets too out of hand, another private militia, like our beloved minutemen, could again take us back to our founding ideals.

 

I am not familiar with how this works in other countries. I know in the US, any law can be challenged and you don't have to be a powerful person to present the challenge.

 

So, Australians et al., how does this work in your country?

Edited January 16, 2010 by KJB

[Tree House Academy]

good question. I just read a couple of articles this past week about a couple of instances in Britain that made me so glad for the freedoms we have here - one was this model/actress who had some teenage boys trying to spy in her windows of her house, so she got a kitchen knife and banged it up against the window to scare them off, and then also called the police. The police told her she shouldn't have used the knife to scare them off; it was an illegal weapon. :confused::confused::confused: And then another man wrote an email to someone using his work address, or something, and used the word 'likey' which happens to rhyme with 'pikey' which is an offensive word to gypsy's.....so they arrested the owner of the business, since it came from the work account, for writing offensive things, and took his DNA at the police station and are going to keep it on record, even though eventually they let him go, since he wasn't the one who wrote the email with the word 'likey'. That's just insane to me. That isn't freedom when if you write a word that rhymes with an offensive word, you get arrested.....just crazy.

 

 

Oh man...better be sure to never write the word duck in an e-mail in Britain.:tongue_smilie:

[Gretchen in NJ]

We were just talking about freedom though. You may think it is a good thing to do this, but you are still forced to do it even if you didn't. I wasn't arguing if it was desirable or not. On a personal level, I actually agree with this line of thinking. At the same time, I am told I shouldn't feel this way because it is only giving the government more control over us to tell us what to do. It comes down to the role of government, not whether we should support one another. But again, this is getting off topic. :tongue_smilie:

Which is odd in a way. Americans (if history teaches us some thing) will give more privately then any other country to help the victims of the earthquake in Haiti. I am not talking about government money. I am talking about money from the people: from the heart of the people.

 

Americans believe in having the freedom to help one another.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Ah hotdrink, you don't have to vote. I registered for voting at 18 as is the law, and have never ever voted. when the slip comes in the mail to see why I haven't voted, I just jot down some bible verses. they think I am some funny religious nut and leave me alone.

:lol:

You have to registar to vote.:001_huh: We have the freedom not to do that too.;)

[Gretchen in NJ]

That's more about honour and respect than compulsion though. The press still have the freedom to print the stuff, but they respect and honour the monarchy enough (at least on the outside LOL) not to.

Maybe with the monarchy this would be true, but are there not laws governing what can be reported in legal cases?

[Gretchen in NJ]

I have wondered if the reason everyone 'has ' to vote is because if it was optional, then nobody would bother.

I personally wouldn't want the American system of voting. I don't really understand how it works, but it looks , from my limited understanding, that the person who can raise the most money wins. I am sure I have it all wrong though.

 

Money helps, but then again Americans love an under-dog.;)

[Gretchen in NJ]

Indeed, I'd even think of it as a type of freedom we have that Americans don't. A communal one rather then individual. Trouble is, some people can't see past the individual bit.

I think KJB covered Americans seeing past the individual part.

 

...... America (granted many of our reasons are related to self-interest/I am not claiming we're altruistic) is still willing to shed our own blood in the name of freedom (freedom for others and our own freedom, which are often related).

[KJB]

In my search for an answer to my question (starting in Australia since that's where you guys answering me are from) I found this description of guaranteed rights in Australia:

 

This article is from 2005. Did Australians pass a Bill of Rights?

 

 

The Challenge for Writing Rights in Australia

 

Published Thursday, 6th October, 2005

by Michael Walton

Reconciling popular support and political opposition

 

In Australia, over the last century or so, there have been numerous attempts to commit fundamental rights and freedoms to paper. While some attempts have been successful, most have failed. Australia still does not have a comprehensive statement of fundamental rights like those found in the Bills of Rights and Charters of Rights and Freedoms in most other countries.

 

There have been many reasons put forward for this failure, but ultimately the root cause is one of political, rather than popular, opposition to a Bill of Rights. This presents a significant challenge for the advocates of this draft Human Rights Act.

 

Existing constitutional rights

 

Australia's Constitution offers only limited protection of rights. Section 80 guarantees trial by jury, but this only applies to trials for federal crimes and the federal Parliament can pick-and-choose which types of crimes will be heard by juries.

 

Section 116 prohibits legislation that forbids the free exercise of religion, but this prohibition only applies to the federal Parliament. The States are free to pass any restrictive laws they like.

 

Section 41 appears to enshrine the right to vote. However, the High Court has ruled that section 41 is an historical anachronism and is no longer operative.

 

Economic rights are more definitively protected: interstate trade and commerce 'shall be absolutely free' (section 92); and there is a guarantee of acquisition of property on just terms (section 51(xxxi)).

 

Some rights can be implied from the Constitution: freedom of political communication (a cut-down version of freedom of speech); a limited right to a fair trial, legal representation in serious criminal matters and equality before the courts; and Bills of Attainder (where Parliament passes a law sending an individual to prison) are forbidden.

 

The defeat of 'Clause 110' by White Australia

 

At the 1898 Constitutional Convention in Melbourne, delegates rejected 'Clause 110'. Clause 110, with proposed amendments, would have guaranteed that no State could deny a person 'equal protection of the law' or 'deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law'.

 

There is a very important historical reason why Clause 110 failed. In the rather candid words of one Convention delegate: 'It is of no use to shut our eyes to the fact that there is a great feeling all over Australia against the introduction of coloured persons. It goes without saying that we do not like to talk about it, but still it is so'.

 

A non-discrimination clause protecting racial minorities was unthinkable in colonial Australia. With a constitutional guarantee of equality, it would have been impossible for the Constitution to support the creation of a White Australia, as the Framers of our Constitution intended it should.

 

Attempts to amend the Constitution

 

There have been several attempts since Federation to protect some rights and freedoms in the Constitution. All have failed.

 

In 1944 Australians were asked to amend the Constitution to extend freedom of religion to the States, and to guarantee freedom of speech and expression. The referendum failed: only South Australia and Western Australia voted 'Yes'.

 

In 1988 all the Australian States rejected a referendum question to guarantee the right to vote. They also rejected a question to extend to the States the guarantees of trial by jury, religious freedom and acquisition on just terms to the States.

 

All of these referendums were sponsored by the Australian Labor Party. The failure of these referendums is often attributed to a lack of bipartisan political support and, to a lesser extent, the tendency of Australians to vote 'No' when they don't feel fully informed about a referendum question.

 

Legislating rights

 

There have also been attempts to legislate a Bill of Rights. The most significant and comprehensive of these was the Human Rights Bill, introduced into the Senate in 1973 by Attorney-General Lionel Murphy. The Bill sought to adopt into Australian law all the rights found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was binding on both the federal and state parliaments. It allowed someone whose rights had been breached, either by a government or another private citizen, to take their case to court. After one of the longest debates in Australian parliamentary history, the Bill failed to pass the Senate.

 

Since then there have been other failed attempts to introduce Human Rights Acts into federal Parliament: in 1985 Lionel Bowen tried; the Australian Democrats tried in 2000; and at least one independent member has introduced a Private Members Bill to enact a Bill of Rights.

 

There is, of course, some limited protection of some rights in federal legislation. For example, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994, and the Privacy Act 1988.

 

In 2004, the ACT became the first (and still the only) place in Australia to enact a Human Rights Act. In 2005, Victoria began community consultations to determine whether it should enact a Charter of Rights. This follows the New South Wales government's rejection of a Bill of Rights in 2001. Western Australia has recently signalled that it could be the next State to investigate the need for a Human Rights Act.

 

Popular support and political opposition

 

With the bi-partisan dismantling of the White Australia Policy and the rise of a more pluralistic and less insular culture, popular support for a Bill of Rights has soared.

 

Seminal research conducted in the early 1990s found that most of the Australians surveyed by the researchers: did not think their rights were well protected (54%); thought courts should have the final say in issues of rights (59%); were 'for' the idea of a Bill of Rights (72%); and wanted a referendum to decide if Australia should have a Bill of Rights (88%).

 

The researchers concluded that there is a vast well of untapped popular support for a Bill of Rights. At first blush, this would appear to be at odds with the history of failed referendum attempts.

 

However, a unique feature of this research is that it also surveyed federal politicians. They were asked the same questions, but with very different results. 79% of politicians surveyed thought that their rights were well protected and 76% thought that parliament should have the final say in issues of rights.

 

On the issue of a Bill of Rights, politicians divided along party lines: 89% of ALP politicians for; 75% of Coalition politicians against. This reflects the lack of bipartisan support for the constitutional (and legislative) protection of rights. And herein lies the challenge for advocates of a Human Rights Act.

 

The Challenge

 

The greatest challenge for advocates of this draft Human Rights Act is not convincing the already-convinced public that Australia needs a Bill of Rights, but of convincing our politicians - and building bipartisan support for writing rights.

 

In the short-term, politicians need to be assured that a statutory Human Rights Act will not impinge on their power to make laws. Politicians also need to be informed that there is broad community support for the protection of our rights.

 

Politicians should also be asked to reflect on these words of Thomas Jefferson, a Republican US president:

 

'...a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general and particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.'

 

 

BY MICHAEL WALTON

[KJB]

This is an interesting discussion. As I've read posts, it occurs to me that everyone is discussing specific, and often anecdotal, laws.

 

As keptwoman pointed out to me above, the laws I list from where I live now are just in one small pinpoint in the country in which I reside. My list is hardly representative of the world at large.

 

So, I wonder, if you are from another country, or if you think another country guarantees more individual liberties than the US, would you please post a link to the document which guarantees those rights?

 

In the US, it is the Constitution. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments which spell out many of our foundational freedoms.

 

Our rights are in writing. There is some debate about rights "implied" but not spelled out in our constitution, but for the most part our rights are delineated clearly. They are often debated and discussed but never dismissed. They are the gold standard of what is guaranteed to all American citizens and they are the reason we pride ourselves in being a country of liberty.

 

In order to really answer the question of the op, it seems like a comparison of more than anecdotes is necessary.

 

Here is our document:

 

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Edited January 16, 2010 by KJB

[Pixie]

I just thought of a freedom my dh enjoys in America that is definitely not available in France...........................................................................

the freedom to wear swim trunks! I kid you not. We were living in France and he took the dc to the local pool in his swim trunks (acceptable everywhere in the USA) and the lifeguard threw him out on the grounds of "TOO MUCH FABRIC." He would need to wear a Speedo! Well, DH was not about to buy a speedo but really wanted to swim. He went home, slipped on black undies, marched back to the pool and stood before the female lifeguard ;). She said, "Oui," and he swam in his undies all day long!

 

On the other hand, women in France have the freedom not to wear a top to go to the beach, try that in the US :D

And the no swim trunks is not a law so much as a rule some pools have instituted because some people would just wear shorts to swim, the same ones they just wore all day long.

[Gretchen in NJ]

On the other hand, women in France have the freedom not to wear a top to go to the beach, try that in the US :D

And the no swim trunks is not a law so much as a rule some pools have instituted because some people would just wear shorts to swim, the same ones they just wore all day long.

It just depends on the beach you go to. We have clothing optional beaches here in the states too.

[Pixie]

It just depends on the beach you go to. We have clothing optional beaches here in the states too.

 

Yes but you have to find the right beach here (not that I would look for one, not my style) whereas in France, it's any and all beaches.

[*Inna*]

Free Speech comes to mind, as I grew up in a former Soviet Union Republic.

And ability to home school.

[Gretchen in NJ]

Yes but you have to find the right beach here (not that I would look for one, not my style) whereas in France, it's any and all beaches.

 

Well then, that is a right right there. We have a right to go to a beach where people's private parts are covered.;):lol:

[Peela]

 

So, I wonder, if you are from another country, or if you think another country guarantees more individual liberties than the US, would you please post a link to the document which guarantees those rights?

 

 

I get your point about the American constitution guaranteeing your rights and that that makes you feel secure and proud in America's freedom (although I am constantly hearing about unconstitutional laws and resrictions of freedoms that make Americans mad)....but I think the discussion has proved that in reality, in the living out of modern democracies like Australia and Canada etc...the difference in freedoms is not very large. It may seem large to you guys...but we are not over here hankering after your freedoms- although there are many countries that have far less freedoms that do hanker after yours and ours.

So no matter what the system is...and our government system is obviously different to yours....the "freedom" aspect is actually very similar in terms of how we live out our lives.

I think thats what the discussion was pointing to...Americans "feel" they are freer that other countries, but in reality, there are several other modern western democratic countries that have very similar freedoms. We don't idealise yours because we are pretty happy with ours :) (as happy as any people can be with its corrupt government, and all are corrupt in one way or another). Thats all. It doesn't make your freedom any less just because we feel ours is fairly equivalent.

[IsabelC]

Melissa, of course you aren't actually physically forced to vote. But, if you would have replied that you didn't wish to vote because you simply didn't feel like it, or didn't like any of the candidates, you would have been fined. I believe that it should be legally optional.

 

 

Another aspect to consider is that legal freedom is not necessarily reflected in social freedom. For instance, freedom of religion can be legally enshrined, but if you happen to be a witch or an atheist (or, to a lesser extent, anything that isn't Christian or Jewish), you will not be welcome to express your religion in many places. If you don't agree, how long do you estimate it will be before the first pagan US president is elected?