|
Post by somnium on Mar 9, 2009 6:55:37 GMT -5
Thanks Malicious_Bloke I looked this up and Australian was involved in the drafting of the universal declaration back in 1948. I found lots of info on this and other international treaties relating to human rights that are upheld in Australia (the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD); and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).) I'm still curious about your bill of rights, is it legislation that can be changed by parliament or is it like our constitution that can only be changed by a referendum? Source: www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/about_human_rights.html
|
|
|
Post by disgruntledcolonel on Mar 9, 2009 7:13:34 GMT -5
The Bill of Rights is a 1689 document drawn up by Parliament in order to put the monarchy in its place when William III (of Orange) invaded in order to give us a Protestant Monarch. It's also pretty similar to the US Bill of Rights: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Bill_of_RightsAs an act of Parliament, It can't be amended, but Parliament can pass new legislation to supplement, replace or repeal it as they want,. The current dominant human rights legislation in the UK is the human rights act of 1998 - which enacts European Convention on Human Rights. into UK law - news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/946400.stmThe UK consitution as such is a collection of different acts of parliament, international treaties, the common law and royal prerogative - despite such a mixture, we've not done too bad since some Barons sat down with Prince John in 1215 and mentioned that they wanted to discuss issues about feudal rights.
|
|
|
Post by somnium on Mar 9, 2009 7:41:53 GMT -5
The UK consitution as such is a collection of different acts of parliament, international treaties, the common law and royal prerogative - despite such a mixture, we've not done too bad since some Barons sat down with Prince John in 1215 and mentioned that they wanted to discuss issues about feudal rights. I agree completely, I think a mixture of constitutional, acts of parliament, international treaties and common law works well in Australia too. I don't see a need to add a Bill of Rights to our constitution at this stage - not only would it be difficult to enact (who decides on the wording?), if they make a mistake it will be extremely difficult to fix (we have an extremely conservative electorate only 8 of 44 referendums have been passed so far). The current system allows us to keep human rights in line with societies standard, both national and international.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on Mar 9, 2009 11:03:06 GMT -5
The last few posts have just made this the most internet winningest thread on FSTDT.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 9, 2009 11:31:20 GMT -5
oh, Sandafluffoid i want to visit the england for the crumpets We actualyl don't eat them much. WHich is unbelievable because crumpets fucking rock. Seriously though they single-handedly redeem the rest of British food.
|
|
|
Post by somnium on Mar 10, 2009 7:05:36 GMT -5
Heheh actually to be honest we have them here too and we, or rather I, eat them all the time. We only get the cheap mass produced type and I really want to try a proper English one. By one, I mean one with each different type of spread - butter, strawberry jam, marmalade, apricot jam... hmm yum i really need to eat something.
I'm sorry for running off on an aussie tangent on your UK thread - it seems i took offense to someone making a blasé comment about our constitution; not all bad, I learnt a few new things which is always nice
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 10, 2009 12:54:03 GMT -5
So guys, is it true the UK has turned into a police state? I hear they've got cameras all over the place, huge databases on every citizen and the police have the power to detain anyone for 28 days for no reason... or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by disgruntledcolonel on Mar 10, 2009 13:32:42 GMT -5
I think Police State is putting it overly-strongly - it implies competance and planning, which I'm not sure the current government would be capable of on its best day. It's more authoritarianism through pandering to the daily fail and its readerships fears of being knifed by immigrant homosexual hoodie teens in the street. Anti-terror laws allow for internment, which as we know worked so well in Ulster in the '70s, though we don't ship anyone off in ugly boilersuits to the Isle of Wight or anything. The security cameras are far more numerable than in previous years, they aren't too intrusive yet, but if they do implement these daft ones that the monitors can speak to you through, that'll be worrying. Not sure about any big database, outside of the normal records any government bureaucracy keeps. The scary stuff are the new laws that give new rights and powers to the police just because they're the police and no politicians want to say no to them, such as the new laws that make taking a photo of a policeman withouth their permission assault: www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4632459/Why-cant-we-take-pictures-of-policemen.html
|
|
|
Post by caretaker on Mar 10, 2009 14:32:13 GMT -5
The anti-terror laws went down like a lead balloon over here, regardless (generally) of what political affiliations people have. It also, according to a random piece from the BBC, caused a spike in the number of downloads of the song Men Behind the Wire.
Which always makes me cry.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 11, 2009 2:11:04 GMT -5
I think it is perhaps a little rough to say we have a crap constitution just because it doesn't have a bill of rights, it is only part of a larger system and that system does protect the rights of individuals. And it did a fantastic job of doing it during the Bjelke-Petersen era in Queensland, a Premier who 'won' elections with 20% of the vote, ended a Labour Prime Ministership, openly defied federal level government to support APARTHEID, started a police state which prevented all marching and locked up condom vending machines at the University of Queensland, beat up hippies and burnt down their houses, alienated his own cabinet making decisions against the advice of his advisors on his own, and allowed and SUPPORTED corrution on behalf of the police (who funded illegal brothels), buisnessmen and his mates in cabinet. And it sure protected the rights of the legal immigrants we locked up for years. And it sure prevented Australian media from conglomerating under the control of one gambling megalomaniac. And it sure protected the rights of Aborigines to their land, under the Mabo decisions (1988, 1992), and the much lesser rights under the Native Title act (1994). It sure prevented Howard from basicly recinding all of those rights in the Native Title Ammendment Act (1998) for which we were criticised by the UN commitee on racism, and told to stop. Yeah, we've done a great job, chaps.
|
|
|
Post by somnium on Mar 11, 2009 4:06:58 GMT -5
I am not denying that Australia, like pretty much every country in the world, has currently and historically not upheld human rights. I think the treatment of the Aboriginal people is horrific, to say the very lest, native title being dwarfed by earlier policies of extermination and the forced removal of children. It mortifies me that world vision is actively working in the northern territory because the government is not supplying those isolated communities with even the basic necessities of life. www.worldvision.com.au/getinvolved/indigenouspartnerships/Likewise I agree that the way refugees have been treated is an abuse of human rights and should be changed. As for Queensland, I can’t really comment, I know little about the state but would hazard a guess that most of the political problems stem, to some degree, from the decision to abolish the upper house, thus removing a valuable mechanism for limiting power and at least attempting to limit corruption (I was interested to find that Qld adopted a new codified constitution in 2001). But like I said I only have an extremely basic, and probably naive, comprehension of Qld politics and human rights history. I am not saying that Australia is perfect and free from all human rights violations, we are far from it, but I don’t think adding a Bill of Rights to the constitution will help in any way. America has a bill of rights and it has not stopped them from committing human rights violations (native Americans; Guantánamo bay etc etc). We have a long way to go as a country but I don’t think a bill of rights will help, if anything it could be counter-productive and distract people from the real issues. I would worry that the government would spend a lot of time drafting it and arguing about it, instead of addressing the actual human violations that are occurring. I want to believe that Australia will get better. I just don’t think a quick fix bill of rights is the answer.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on Mar 11, 2009 4:12:08 GMT -5
All the CCTV cameras are in public places anyway. You have no right to privacy in a public place. I don't see how a bunch of CCTV cameras in the street is all that different than having a bunch of actual police men in the street, apart from the ability to record (a few forces are now issuing officers with head cams mind you).
If the cameras were in people's houses or other private palces then that would be different. But they aren't. I don't see how they are any privacy issues for soemthgn that isn;t private.
The database things are something worth being pissed off about, however. They aslo recently wanted to listen to every single mobile pone conversation in the country (which I already assumed they did, apparently not). On the other hand I don't think our Government is competent enough to abuse these databases or even create and maintain them. the real problem is the Governemnt loosing all that private data, which they've been doing A LOT lately.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 11, 2009 5:21:16 GMT -5
I am not denying that Australia, like pretty much every country in the world, has currently and historically not upheld human rights. that system does protect the rights of individuals. We don't even allow them to enjoy the rights to property they have to large tracts of Australia like everyone else. The legislature does not respect the rights to native title: even the original Native Title Act regarded native Title as a mere 'bundle of rights' like you get in an apartment you don't actually own. And then Howard took away even those minor rights. As for Queensland, I can’t really comment, I know little about the state but would hazard a guess that most of the political problems stem, to some degree, from the decision to abolish the upper house, thus removing a valuable mechanism for limiting power and at least attempting to limit corruption (I was interested to find that Qld adopted a new codified constitution in 2001). That certainly didn't help, but corruption existed in Victoria and New South Wales (where the police actually funded heroin importation) where they had bicameral parliaments, too. It was never as spectacular nor as Shakespearean as Queensland (Brisbane supposedly being the most corrupt city on earth in 1985), but the corruption was there (Sydney was supposed to be number 3). It can't have been the unicameral system alone. I think that we need a list of goals for legislation, that is created and challenged by simple majority in a referendum (none of this 'majority of states' shit as well, just a 51% majority will be fine) . If that is a 'bill of rights', fine. If legislation fails to uphold this 'list of rights', the High Court (or a Supreme Court in the case of a state decision, or a Disctrict court in the case of a local government decision) should be able to rule on it's legality AND THEN HAVE A REMEDY. I don't know, some kind of police force, or official in parliament that has to sign off on every government decision. Maybe you could even get rid of the list of rights, and just have the remedy. The Aussie government has broken the law long enough.
|
|
|
Post by somnium on Mar 11, 2009 12:48:26 GMT -5
Making all levels of government accountable and having defined rights that do don't change every time the government changes could be a good thing, provided they are written correctly (to appropriate standards) the first time (could you imagine Howard's version?). Having an officer sign off on legislation based on human rights considerations is an interesting idea - perhaps even based on UN standards - what would happen if they refused to sign would be interesting especially if the govt starts sounding the "mandate from the people" trumpet.
The idea of having the legislation subject to a referendum makes me extremely nervous, it is in fact my main reservation to including a "bill of rights" in the constitution. I come from a mining town were there are a lot of social problems - crime, particular violent crime is common place - a lot of the people there are extremely racist (a racism that is born out of fear due to a small anti-social minority with drug and alcohol problems). These people can not separate the action of one individual or a small minority group of individuals from the whole.
So what would happen if you gave them the vote? would they make the rational, logical choice and vote for basic human rights for all? I am not convinced, I mean damn they voted Howard in for four terms in a row do you really trust them to vote on human rights?
I wish i could have more faith, and maybe I am being unfair and not giving the electorate enough credit. If so I look forward to being pleasantly surprised.
As for the three quotes you used in your last post, one of which was from an earlier post to the other two - out of order just for effect? Australia has taken steps to move forward but there is a long way to go - I do think that for the most part Australians today enjoy a high standard of basic human rights, compared even to other western countries. But as you and I have illustrated there are large cracks and we need to continue lobbying the government to push for the improvement of human rights policies, especially narrowing the gap between Aboriginal people and the "mainstream" society.
I was also wondering why you focused just on native title? I think the NT intervention also warrants a mention, they have stripped respected communities down and made normal, decent people fell like criminals in their own towns. It is an appalling situation, they are not even allowed to manage their own money (this last bit may have changed since Howard left office). I don't know the answer, there are some very complicated and conflicting positions. It will also take us a while to correct the policies of Howard, but voting him out was at least a start. (minor since Rudd has turned out to be pro-censorship)
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Mar 11, 2009 16:32:40 GMT -5
The anti-terror laws went down like a lead balloon over here, regardless (generally) of what political affiliations people have. Until someone can come up with a sound argument for why Britain is under any more threat now than during the 30 years the IRA and related groups were active, I'm not going to be convinced of the need for new anti-terror laws. And disgruntledcolonel's link shows us how easy they are to abuse - there's no way that guy's pic of a police van running a no-entry sign (which they can do, but only in emergencies, signified by the lights and siren being on) could have been useful to terrorists, the policeman was just covering his arse from potential disciplinary action.
|
|