“The Australian debate should instead be based on ordinary laws like the charters and human rights acts introduced in New Zealand, Britain, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria.”

Don’t trust George. We have read elsewhere, and on OLO, at different times that the situation in New Zealand is not as it is supposed to seem, and judges do, in fact, usurp the role of elected politicians.

George has stopped using a “Bill of Rights” – which he has harped on for years – and replaced it with the more innocuous-sounding “national charter of rights”; more weaselling from George.

Also remember, Robert McClelland is the same ex-shadow foreign affairs spokesman who pleaded for leniency for foreign terrorists facing the death penalty after they slaughtered 80 Australians in Bali.

Definitely don’t trust McClelland on anything to do with human rights

Letter at Xmas:

"Don't trust George. Don't trust McClelland. Trust Leigh. Signed Leigh."

Duty done! Pass the port old chap.

Victoria's charter of human rights is not all it is cracked up to be by deputy premier and attorney general Rob Hulls in his article "Right to a fair go enshrined in law" published in The Australian newspaper 10/12.
On 25 January 2006 a beautiful photograph of Mr. Hulls's baby son born on January 23 appeared in a Melbourne newspaper. On January 23 that little baby inherited a whole range of human rights. But on January 22 that baby had no rights. Mr. Hulls charter of human rights does not guarantee the first human right, the right to life. All the rights Mr Hulls claims are now protected, freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, conscience, religion, belief etc are only academic if that first human right is not guaranteed.

The Victorian State Government's own political party long ago decided to legalise abortion in Victoria. Consequently no advice was required or any recommendation by a supposedly expert body needed. A junior lawyer in the Attorney- General's Department could draft the necessary legislation. The Government instead has asked the Victorian Law Reform Commission for advice on options to "Remove from the Crimes Act 1958 offences relating to terminations of pregnancy where performed by qualified medical practitioner". This leaves some Victorians believing the Government is misusing the VLRC, that it wants this advice for its own political purposes, namely so that the Government can hereafter say that the amendments to the Crimes Act which it proposes has been done on the advice of an expert body. And the Brumby Government can blame the VLRC for the legalisation of abortion. So much for Mr Hulls's claim "our charter leaves the final say with parliament."

Denny

Yes, we need our human rights, and responsibilities recognised, legislated, upheld and consequences imposed when there are proven violations. For this we need competent Courts and judiciary to hear cases of alleged violations, that do not rely on representation by expensive lawyers.

There are other elements of International Human Rights Law that need to be added to Mr Williams list, also ratified by successive Australian governments of both sides of politics, especially the Convention on the Rights of the Child (again highlighted by the recent denials of the human rights of an indigenous female child in north Queensland by government, Courts and bureaucrats), and the Convention against Discrimination in Education to secure real choice in education.

Legislation passed and proposed in other countries and Australian States have been selective about which human rights are upheld, as if we should somehow pick and choose which rights Australians can avail themselves of and which rights the government of the day has ordained to confer on us.

Human rights are universal. That was decided by the community of nations some 60 years ago. Why are we reconsidering the universality of all human rights? Is it because governments don't believe Australians ought to have and enjoy their rights and responsibilities, and too much of a good thing, is just too much for our people?

Human rights and responsibilities ought to be applied equally and to all persons as equals. Selectively legislating human rights would only serve to demonstrate our immaturity as people and as a nation and to highlight the causes that are only important to the governing political party. That's not fair to all Australians and its not just, because it would not fulfill our diverse needs, interests, values and aspirations. It would continue to deny us freedoms that have long been denied to us.

People have suffered long enough without human rights. Those making decisions about legislation and those commenting on it need to leave their safe environs and their money and power and walk in the shoes of those of us whose rights have been denied and who have suffered discrimination.

I haven't read George's article - there is no need. One look at the degradation of the United Nations high ideals at inception to the moral morass it is today, with the OIC - the worst group of human rights abusers - dominating and returning human rights to 7th Century Arab pagan standards with the agreement, or at most mild protest, or ineffective strong protest because of numbers, has shown me our progression through enlightenment is straight into the callous arms of "darkenment".

That people who are more concerned with re-engineering what it is to be human to have such a pervasive influence on determining human rights; that people who are traitors to their own are now so influential in determining such policy is frightening. In short, there are very few today who have the moral and ethical backbone to write such a charter, and those few are silenced by the indoctrinated and the prime abusers posing as victims.

Yes indeed. We do need our rights enshrined in law. And as the writer states: This recognises that the best human rights protection does not lie in court after a breach has occurred, but in ensuring that the problem does not arise in the first place.

its interesting to note that those who rally against the notion of human rights in law are often the loudest to be heard when its their human rights that are being abused..blind as bats until it bites them on the bum.

Good article George

Is Leigh aware that Robert McClelland, as Attorney-General, is an elected Member of Parliament?

How exactly does his raising of this important issue "usurp the role of elected politicians"?

Leigh has already accurately described himself in this forum:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6728#101125

I can only add that he also appears to have little comprehension of the political system he loves to castigate.

people with no power have no rights. when oz has a constitution that says something like:

"we, the citizens, declare that we are masters of our nation. all law and policy requires the express consent of the electorate for legitimacy."

then, only then, do you have rights. until then you are second class people, subservient to a few hundred politicians who couldn't be admitted to the real estate agents guild because of moral failings.

so go on pretending to be grown-ups, the pollies will go on pretending too, flattery of the fools who vote for them is part of their trade tools.

Yes Demos... sounds great... just as communism sounds great - until you start to practice it. I look around me and am very pleased most of my fellow citizens don't have too much say in the making of laws.

CJ Morgan,

Your personal dislike for me has left you looking really stupid this time.

Yes. I am aware who McLelland is, and he has every right to raise the issue. Perhaps if you attend remedial reading classes, then read what I said again, you will realise that I referred to judges as the usurpers of the role of politicians, after politicians have enacted legislation.

I expect criticism from people like you – nasty, sarcastic losers. Some of you have a modicum of intelligence but most, like you, are simply negative morons with no real life. You have nothing original to say, so you attack other people to make yourselves feel ‘useful’.

You are entitled to dislike me and my opinions, and I couldn’t care less. But if you really need to keep it up the way you do, you need to take a good look at yourself and see if you can get some sort of worthwhile life going.

As it is, you are a carping, cowardly little creature beneath contempt. I’m sure you will keep up your vindictive bitchiness; I just won’t be looking at any more. There is a limit to my tolerance of creeps like you

I don't agree with the belief that the Courts usurp democracy. Justice is as important as Parliaments.

It is a mistaken belief that because Parliaments pass legislation, that legislation is somehow perfect or close to it. Just as democracy is imperfect, and just as representative democracy is not representative of the needs, interests, aspirations or values of all individuals, legislation does not meet everyone's needs. People are regularly disenfranchised by party specific policies that give rise to legislation and regulation. Few people trust government to represent their interests.

The Courts have an important role to play in deciphering and interpreting legislation and its intent. Whilst Parliaments have their role to play, so do the Courts in determining issues of justice, fairness, equity, freedom and responsibility. Unfortunately, too often elected MPs have legislated away the rights of Courts.

I can point to legislation now: that is fundamentally flawed; proclaims Objects that are contradicted by the legislation itself; where there is positive discrimination in favour of a minority of people, but negative discrimination against the majority of the people; where the right to natural justice was removed and written out of legislation, but remained for many others. This is the result of party political ideology having a detrimental impact and influence on the drafting and enacting of legislation, consequently damaging the role of Parliament and its relationship of oversight over Government and thereby hurting people by not representing their best interests, and not with good will. The people deserve their rights to be upheld every day. Human rights ought to be the first consideration in drafting legislation.

We lack the Constitutional rights and recognition to which we ought to be entitled. In the absence of Constitutional rights, the Parliaments and Governments we ought to rely on regularly fail us. Only the Courts offer the protection and interpretive ability for people who believe their reasonable needs, interests, etc have been violated and neglected, including with respect to their human rights that Australian Governments have ratified. The issue of the unaffordability of legal representation and access to the Courts, is another associated issue.

George Williams and the Gilbert & Tobin Centre of Public Law apparently believe a "Traditional Owners" living in their "Traditional homelands" communities and houses do NOT have

- right for family to live with them ;

- right for family to visit them ;

- right for friends to visit or stay with them ;

- right for qualified tradespeople to visit and conduct repairs ;

- right to run a business under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions;

- right to construct or live in a house (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

- right to obtain a fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions lease for their home (constructed with government monies) ;

- right to receive legal assistance to have legal issues arising considered judicially ;

- right to work (under fair, reasonable and equitable terms and conditions) ;

Reading George Williams or the Gilbert & Tobin Centre of Public Law commenting about human rights...

Hey, George. Great article - up to your usual standard of excellence and informed debate.

Pity the same can't be said for many of these contributors, who apparently think your article gives them a base for an outpouring of their vacuous and unrelated verbal diarrhoea.

The only thing I would add to your insightful thoughts on this matter is that we should not do things by half - nor should we "re-invent the wheel". The UN has thought through these issues of human rights in great detail for over five decades and has published them in a string of Charters, Conventions and Protocols - from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, via the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - all the way to the recent discussion on the Human Rights associated with access to pharmaceutical drugs.

The proposed Charter should include the all the human rights described therein. And, most definitely, no defacto veto power should be left in the hands of judges.

Ah, yes indeed, Doc holiday.... very wise words... if only!
Derek@Booroobin, you too make valid points, but you lose me when referring vaguely to a disadvantaged majority suffering under minority priveledge. Do you mean, perhaps, the taxation advantages given to religious organisations? The generous superannuation for ex parliamentarians? the huge payouts to retiring CEO's?

ybgirp,

I only refer to issues of human rights.

Those other things you talk of don't come into that category.

I mean legislation, for instance, in just one field of human endeavor that proclaims to give choice but then creates legislation and regulations, and associated legislation and regulations that strictly limits, reduces and eventually denies choice; that forces people to only take what is served up by the State; that recognises and confers human rights according to International Human Rights Law but strictly limits its application to one small group of people who, if they had legislated human rights in the first instance along with everyone else, would not then need special privileges then denied to the majority; that gives some people a voice, but denies that right to others; that involves some people in the decisions that affect and are made about them; that denies Natural Justice and procedural fairness to some, but gives it to the majority; that denies the rights of people to judicial appeal and oversight but rather leaves it in the hands of clearly biased Government Ministers, who cleverly crafted the relevant legislation, and their chiefly government appointed Boards; etc. And all of this under just one government, and one Minister in different consecutive portfolios.

If this active discrimination and perversion of Parliamentary practices and government is representative of the whole, it should be of concern to everyone.

In the West, the government is going to bring in a Human Rights act whatever.
The same government that has overridden three referendums because the wishes of the majority were against the wishes of the government.
That is called Democracy. Labor style. We are in for an interesting time.

Derek@Booroobin,
your explanation would benefit from examples of anti-human rights legislation - or legislation that discriminates. Are you afraid of being labelled? presumably the denial of civil unions to same-sex-oriented people is one example of a minority being discriminated against. Give us an example of the majority suffering?

ybgirp,

You asked: "Are you afraid of being labelled?" I am labelled. I am part of a group that has been excluded, prevented from pursuing our interests, choices and passions - in education. In addition, some people I know are in fear of acting in their and their children's best interests, and as teachers.

I'm not afraid. The State actively monitors us, and will go to any length to make us fear them and stop us from doing what is right and that works for us, even at our own financial cost. However, people I know are fearful of the likely effects of speaking out against the State's denial of our rights and their oppression and repression of us. My family and friends have lost so much at the hands of an intolerant State government. I've most recently suffered the indignity of having a cloud over my head by being on bail for some 7 months as a result of a criminal charge brought by the State, about which they eventually decided not to produce evidence, and dropped the charge, simply because along with other parents I exercised my internationally accepted (except in Australia) human rights in education. As is typical of the State there was never an apology for their actions. The State acts with impunity against people using their power, control, might, resources and money. They've yet to be held to account for their actions. Minorities have long experienced this.

Apart from our suffering and losses, about which you may hear more over time, the most glaring recent and obvious example of discrimination and denial of human rights was that of the 10 year old indigenous Australian girl on Cape York.

You said: "your explanation would benefit from examples of anti-human rights legislation ..." Examples of specific legislation (and associated ancillary Regulations) in Queensland includes, but is not limited to:
- Education (General Provisions) Act 2006
- Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000
- Child protection Act 1999
- Education (Queensland Studies Authority) Act 2002
- Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001.

I'll take a guess... you want to educate your children at home?
I am well aware of the power and aggressive persecution of the state, having been born a criminal, and legally considered to be one until the age of fifty, when laws demanding the persecution of same-sex-oriented people were rescinded. Legal discrimination against me persists, as you are no doubt aware.
I share your horror at the treatment of the girl you mention, and have registered my concerns with the government, as I requently do when I become aware of human rights abuses, such as Stolen Wages...
I wish you well.

No, we want our children and others to learn in a School of our choice, that accords with our values and is a participatory democratic, human rights and responsibilities based, sustainable school. One that acknowledges and supports racial, social, cultural and spiritual diversity and encourages the equal treatment of all people irrespective of race, religion, gender, age, ability, sexual preference, political orientation or economic background.

We would provide the campus, the facilities (building them as necessary), resources, Staff and self-fund the School, not for profit. This is just as we did from 1996 when the School first started after 2 years intensive work by 7 committees.

We were far more foolish then, believing that we were entitled to State funding, and that there ought to be "mutual obligation", in providing a little of taxpayers' funds, far less than was and is paid to State Schools. We have been taught a lot by the State since then, especially not to trust the State. Accepting State funds meant intolerable intrusions into our day to day operation, the purposeful erosion of the democratic and human rights principles of our Constitutional democracy, which had been known to and approved by State and federal Governments in 1995/6, and the continuous almost annual inspections and moving of the goal posts, all intended to coerce us into becoming undemocratic and denying our human rights obligations to young people, parents and staff.

You obviously understand that like other persecuted minorities, we have lost so much, including one quarter of my life and a lot of money, working on and developing a thriving dynamic, reflective democratic learning culture, something great for young people, who thrived, and grew immensely, proudly and over the long term were successful people. To see what we aspire to check our sister school, the Sudbury Valley School www.sudval.org/ and also Summerhill School www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

Geoffrey Robertson QC represented Summerhill to gain justice in England, but we have not been able to do the same in Queensland, because the government's legislation deliberately prevents us, and our human rights are not yet legislated.

I wish you well also.

This is tragic. When I first heard of Summerhill as a child I read all I could about it and yearned to go to such a school. That bureaucracy and red tape should foil such a plan to educate children is sickening.
The spirit of Joh suffocates everything still in Queensland.

In fact I would have thought that the courts in Australia have enough laws in place to protect its citizens. Trouble is the clever (sneaky)interpretations of the law often fail to protect innocent members of the community. What will a Bill of Rights do ? My guess is that it will look good on paper but the same rights will be argued and be interpreted to suit the legislators of the day. This will ensure that any attempts to make significant progress will be blocked. One such injustice comes to mind and that's when Liam Magill in Melbourne put his faith in the 'system' in the hope that a 'just decision' would be handed down to stop women like Meredith McClelland - Magill from perpetrating the horrendous crime of paternity fraud. Every one of Liam Magill's basic human rights were violated and the High Court of Australia rubber stamped the injustices that he suffered by white washing his case in Nov 2006. A fine example of what we can look forward to. All will be revealed in the up and coming book ' Days of Tempest'
Cheryl King
Enduring Power of Attorney for Liam Magill

It is good for citizens to constantly discuss and seek to implement an Australian Bill or Charter of Rights. In the meantime, Australia could use and apply the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, as an example for universal application by nations and for all Australians to know well. Knowledge and acceptance of a short version would be a better citizenship test than a test of mostly trivial information that most of us would fail. Here are the first 259 words of a total of 950 words of a shortened version:

Freedom, justice and peace are founded on the inborn dignity and equal rights of all human beings, protected by the rule of law.

Article I. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They have reason and conscience to act to each other as brothers and sisters.

2. These rights and freedoms are for everyone, no matter what race, colour, sex, language, religion, opinions, origins, wealth or birth, and in all countries.

3. All have the right to life, liberty and personal safety.

4. No slavery in any form.

5. No torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

6-8. Everyone is equal before the law, to have the equal protection of the law to maintain their basic rights.

9 No arrest, detention or exile without just cause and public knowledge.

10 Fair and public trials.

11. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. No-one can be held guilty of a penal offence that was not an offence at the time, or given a heavier punishment than what was legal at the time.

12. The right to the protection of the law against all arbitrary interference with privacy, or attacks on reputation.

13. Freedom to move within the borders of each state, and the right to leave any country, including your own, and to return home.

14. The right to seek and find in other countries asylum from persecution (except for non-political crimes or acts against the purposes and principles of the United Nations.)

(http://home.vicnet.net.au/~ozideas/humrights.htm)

ozideas,

That's a nice, but inadequate, 60 year old idea.

The Universal Declaration is an excellent, but ancient document.

Humanity has moved on and developed since then. Why should Australians go back to the past, when we can and must move forward? Legislating what you propose lacks courage. It would be a cop out. The Declaration fails to mention human rights that have since been declared and agreed. This would set us and our human rights back in time, not bring us to the present.

Why start to legislate the earliest document, rather than the complete International Human Rights Law?

It could be almost guaranteed that Parliaments will find excuses not to legislate any further human rights once they've legislated only this small, early beginning of human rights. One of the excuses to not legislate more of what are our human rights now (that lazy, wilful governments have failed to legislate at the same time as ratifying each component of contemporary human rights) after what you propose will be cases brought to the Courts for the hearing of human rights violations, especially so as to clarify broad components of the Declaration with respect to the whole of International Human Rights Law. It would simply serve to fund too many Court cases.

Your short version fails to mention issues of: age; education; indigenous peoples; parental right to choice; parents' rights and responsibilities in raising their children; parents rights to establish and operate independent schools; personal values and personal convictions vs those of the State; children's rights; democracy; apolitical education preparing young people for life as effective independent adults; politics; sexual preferences; ability / disability; personal responsibilities; collective responsibilities; private property issues.

Why settle for less than Australian Governments have agreed to when the foregoing are subsequent to, built on the foundation of, are implied, but not specified, in the Universal Declaration?

Legislation must also empower competent Courts (as separate and distinct from HREOC), and a competent judiciary, to hear cases of alleged violations and impose consequences and penalties in cases where human rights have been proven to have been violated.