Where rights are explicitly set down, they can be meaningless or can be truncated. As for humanrights legislation, the federal parliament has not followed through on its responsibilities in relation to the external affairs powers. As it is, there is a ragbag of legislation, with various boards, tribunals and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission varying in their procedures and powers, and in their effectiveness. If the Constitution in its entirety is up for debate, with a prospect of having a newly framed Constitution, then it would be worthwhile framing a Bill of Rights setting out all those rights we believe need to be promoted for women - including ethnicity, race, marital status, pregnancy, sexuality, etc. This is the position in Canada, and there is no reason why it cannot be the case here.
Rights are a fundamental basis from which all dispossessed people can progress.
It is foolhardy. But there are dangers with this formulation. Interests are far less clearly defined or definable. Surely they are more and should mean more.