If a bill of rights were enacted, it would then be up to a court to decide whether freedom of speech should be limited in relation to pornography, tobacco advertising, solicitation for prostitution and the publication of instructions on how to make bombs. These are issues which need to be considered in the context of community views. They are issues which should be decided by an elected Parliament whose Members are ultimately responsible to the people for the decisions they make. They are not decisions which should be made by judges, who are not directly accountable to the people. There are additional problems in legislatures abdicating their policy role to the courts on human rights issues.
Courts operate within an adversarial process.
Matters only arise before them when there is a dispute and judgments are made on the basis of particular facts. Decisions are therefore piecemeal in nature and cannot take into account all issues relevant to determining policy. The material before the courts is limited by rules of evidence and procedure and the courts do not have presented before them all the matters which should be taken into account when developing a broad policy on rights issues. In short, a court is not an appropriate forum for making these decisions. Further, a bill of rights will unduly politicise the judiciary.