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??

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.

"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.

"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

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.

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.

Refreshing piece of writing Valerie Yule.

It would be good to see more advocation on "who we are" or "could become" as citizens. Can we see ourselves as citizens questioned, can our collective rights and equity be more widely promoted for the sake of our universal needs.

Why should being part of a world that actively acknowledges Human Rights be made into something we only ever dream?

"We have the right to an international order in which to realise these rights. With these rights go the responsibilities of citizens".

And it will take awareness of everyone because, "Everyone has duties to their community, in order to be full citizens, and no one has the right to destroy any of these rights or freedoms for others."

We need to wake up. I believe we have the right government leaders in place... I think the work is with the Departmental Administrations, the regional and local workers of Government. And,

I believe their task is to rebuild administrations where public servants are encouraged to develop a more constructive relationship with community . [Glue] Target marginal polices that enable citizens to become meaningfully and creatively involved with working together, to solve problems at community levels.

I call for a process that is inclusive, based on knowledge, share and exchange principals of communication. A process that promotes new skills development and micro-enterprise, so no one person is left out.

Happy New Year Everyone, and may we all work toward a caring and sustaining world.

http://www.miacat.com/

When and if the final decision regarding the Australian Charter of Human rights is signed sealed and delivered, lets ensure that all the judges in the High Court of Australia are made also aware of the rights of all its citizens and that they will ensure that their judgments are delivered appropriately - unlike the High Court's decision of the 9th Nov 2006 in he Magill paternity fraud appalling debacle( decision )
Cheryl King
www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au

The first 21 rights are fine. The only way of achieving the rest is for some people to be forced to provide for others.
How do you ensure that people have a job if nobody wants to give them one? If you say "the government will provide one" you are saying that others will be forced to pay taxes to pay the wages.

It is crystal clear that being UK subject and voting for J.Howard of Australia is as much colonial as being South Australian minister-for-something permanently residing in London recently.

"Either Greek/Turk or Australian" as a reader had written these days somewhere in newspaper – either Brit or Aussie. That is it.No fog of the UN rights, please.

It is all well and good to talk about the rights of assylum seekers.
However people also have a right not to be browbeaten by foreigners who find the host society not like the one they left to come here. If foreigners don't like the way the host society runs things, then they should go somewhere else that is compatible with their society or religious views.

By the way, the level of spelling, punctuation and grammar in these forums is appalling. Don't any of you people possess a dictionary. It is hard hard to understand a lot of comments in this forum for the above mentioned reasons

You mean like ASSylum ST G;- or was that just a dig?