ONLY "POLITICALLY CORRECT" BILLS OF RIGHTS NEED APPLY

In Australia and Britain, the left is now campaigning for the introduction of a Bill of Rights, or (more likely) propose to bring one in via the back door via EU or UN treaties, thus shortcutting democratic and constitutional processes. Critics point out that a paper Bill of Rights is absolutely no roadblock to a dictator, and even democratic governments violate them in times of crisis (eg FDR's internment of Japanese Americans in WW2). The old Soviet Union had one of the best paper Bills of Rights, despite Stalin being the 20th Century's most bloodthirsty tyrant. Take for example in the 1936 "Stalin" Constitution:

"Article 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations."

1936 was also the year usually defined as the starting date for Stalin's "Great Purge". Any ordinary Russian who attempted to assert his 1936 rights would, if he weren't killed, no doubt be treated as a lunatic by his peers.

Many pro-Bill advocates accept "the 1936 Stalin Constitution" case as legitimate example of failure by government and political elites to abide by a written Bills of Rights, but essentially argue "that would never happen here". The trouble with that is that it has. Australia inherited from Britain the 1689 English Bill of Rights -- a document that is essentially ignored by governments in both countries, and spurned by the very civil libertarians who demand we support for their proposed new Bills. Any ordinary Australian today who attempted to assert his or her 1689 rights would no doubt also be treated as a nut.

Many of the same civil libertarians often acknowledge that the US Bill of Rights is the most successful and continuously observed Bill in the world, citing the US case as one for others to follow, but would frankly treat with contempt any suggestion that the US Bill merely be copied verbatim by Australia or the UK.

The reason for this Orwellian behaviour from so called civil libertarians is not hard to decipher once you know what to look for. They are not particularly interested in reinforcing the "negative rights", like those outlined in the 1680 Bill, i.e. traditional protections against arbitrary government. They propose to increase the power of government via subterfuge by adding "economic and social rights" to the constitution. Unlike the older "negative rights", these so called "positive rights", actually necessitate state coercion. As money does not grow on trees, enforced coercion is the only way they can guarantee Peter his "right" to "free" health care, i.e. by forcing Paul to pay for it ..or go to gaol. By establishing "positive rights" provisions in the constitution, these so-called civil libertarians hope to put the welfare state safely beyond the reach of the ballot box and any threat (however remote) from disgruntled taxpayers. The net result of all this is to increase, not decrease, the probability that citizens would be subject to arbitrary government action. Maybe Laocoon's advice "timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" (usually translated as "beware of Greeks bearing gifts") needs to be applied to "civil libertarians" bearing Bills of Rights.