The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australian citizenship and human rights > Comments

Australian citizenship and human rights : Comments

By Valerie Yule, published 17/1/2008

Understanding the UN Declaration of Human Rights would be as good a test for Australian citizenship as you could get.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
While i agree in general with the concept, in fact i think its a great idea, i am concerned about the meaning of article 15.

1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Does this mean you can be a non Australian citizen living in Australia, and yet with all voting rights, pension etc rights?

I understand that everyone wants to retain their original national identity but overall i would have thought you would be an Australian national if you chose to live permanently in that country??
Posted by eCHALKY, Thursday, 17 January 2008 2:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The biggest problem about the whole concept of 'charters/declarations' on rights etc.. is that they are based on secular ideas which don't provide adequate protection against 'wierd' idiosyncracies of various religions which can result in

a) The overturning of the democracy which accepted them.
b) The growth of cultural habits incompatable with the host country.

The classic current example is the Sikh Kirpan where the Multi Cultural Council of Victoria lobbied for exemptions to the 'carrying offensive weapons' act so they can take the Kirpans to SCHOOL !

This issue has a long history in Canada, where the supreme court finally decided (and of course steam rolling the unanymous view of the school boards and principles) that they sikh's can take them.

They did make some proviso's, but in my view not strong enough. They should have also limited the maximim SIZE/length of the weapon, such that it is no bigger than a small crucifix.

But a central aspect of the story was the idea that a persons 'religious liberty' overules the state law ! because of signed conventions. CRAZZZZZY.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/02/kirpan-scoc060302.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/01/15/sidhu-kirpan.html?ref=rss#skip300x250
That link is about a Sikh in Canada denied entry to a courtroom because of carrying his kirpan.. have a look at the size in the pic, to me it COULD be a very effective weapon. But the point is.. if he claims his rights are denied..what about OUR rights to protection from people carrying weapons ? What is different if he carrys a small one or a big one..size DOES matter.

IF... it is just about 'rights' due to some remote 'charter' or convention...then it has to apply ON PLANES as well.. and we all know where 'that' could/would lead.

MY LITTLE RANT.. so I conclude that Australia should REMOVE itself forthwith from signatory status to these charters OR.. "add" as many exceptions or qualifications as we need to retain our soveriegnty.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 17 January 2008 4:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The “Australian history” curriculum in our schools should include the backgrounds of the English Magna Carta, that Great Charter of 1215; the American Declaration of Independence, 1776, famously stating that all humans are created equal, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood that was the hope of the French Revolution; and the Four Freedoms, from hunger and fear, and freedom of speech and religion, set out by Roosevelt and Churchill, following the 'eight common principles' of their Anglo-American Atlantic Charter in 1941."

I think that this hits it right on the head.

For too long now in Western countries we have debated what it means to be English, or French or Australian, etc., when in fact, if you look to Western Europe, Australia, Canada and the USA, they all have in common these above principles and ethics and above all they are the things, the ideals, that the common men and women of these nations fight for when at war, more than one's "Swedishness" or "Englishness" or "Australianess".

I think that with the policy of Multiculturalism, we have gone backwards, away from the "constitutional patriotism" of the modern Western world and back to the old ethnic patriotism, where a Swede fought for all superficial things Swedish, as did the Frenchman and the Englishmen.

I agree with the article in that I think that new citizens should be tested on the types of values that are embodied in documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as such values are surely one day going to be commonplace worldwide.
Posted by White Warlock, Saturday, 19 January 2008 8:45:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The “Australian history” curriculum in our schools should include the backgrounds of the English Magna Carta, that Great Charter of 1215; the American Declaration of Independence, 1776, famously stating that all humans are created equal, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; the Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood that was the hope of the French Revolution; and the Four Freedoms, from hunger and fear, and freedom of speech and religion, set out by Roosevelt and Churchill, following the 'eight common principles' of their Anglo-American Atlantic Charter in 1941."

Agree, is essential to understand the path followed to date in developing human rights, including mistakes made and how long they took to fix.

Let us hope those creating confusion through seeking and presenting human rights under racial and ethnic terms are soon defeated
Posted by polpak, Sunday, 20 January 2008 8:34:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear eChalky.... 'we will determine who comes here and the manner in which they come'.... don't you worry about that... as auld Joh would say.

But what about all them Poms wot live here, voting, getting pensions and discounts from the Feds, and never beconing an Ozzie Citizen?

Oh yes... the bludgers.

It's not just 'foreigners' we have to fear eChalky... there is the enemy within too.

Fifth columnists, taking up space in this widebrown land of whities.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Monday, 21 January 2008 10:40:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We would do well to remember that Doc Evatt was one of the drafters of the declaration and that Article 9 was forced because of Australia.

Yet in the case of refugees we threw it in the bin and invented arbitrary and executive punishment for not committing any crime. It is enshrined in our law that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries yet we have decided to lock them up if they don't have a stamp on a piece of paper that they don't even have to have.

As for being a citizen - there is no such thing in the constitution as an Australian citizen. Those creatures only came into being in 1948 by an act of parliament after the universal declaration was ratified.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 21 January 2008 1:08:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy