Hi, I am a university student and have a question as for Human Right.
Why Australia does not accept the Declaration of Human Right while most of the industrialised countries do accept this?
I am very curious about it.
If anybody know, please tell me why and if there is any website explaining why, let me know as well.

Thank you,
KUMA

It is because all dictators in earthlings history need many sociopaths as bureaucrats to carry out the will of the rightful leader.
Thou thinks ye protests to much about the right to have any rights.
Do as we say not as we do.
I for one can not see why anybody could think that our decisions against anyone is not in our best interests.
If any earthling was given a real choice it may not be in our real interests. So no rights will be given as you may not make the one we want.
YOURS SINCERELY (insert leader here)
PS For privacy reasons we have placed this on your personal file.

Hi there Kuma

well.. the simple fact is.. the declaration is, in the words of

Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the UN, .... called the Declaration "a letter to Santa Claus".

POINT 1. Such declarations are always USED maliciously by politically marginal people and parties to extend their own sectarian agenda.
(Bob_Brown/Marilyn_Shepherd-leftoids_in_general)

POINT 2. It is a non workable wish list dreamt up in fantasyland.

Take 'Article 2' for example.

>>Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,<<

To which I and any other sane person will respond "ABSOLUTE RUBBISH"

The above is a prescription for ANARCHY if political opinions don't matter.. including those of a party which would DENY the freedom to even TALK against the values that party espouses...then what is the point of having 'human rights' ? They would dissappear as soon as that particular party rose to power. One such example is Malaysia. They used to have (and probably still do) the "FIVE SENSITIVE ISSUES"
where, if you even DISCUSSED them with other people.. you could be jailed without trial, indefinitely, under the internal security act.
Those sensitive issues include:

1/ The privileged position of Malays in Malaysia
2/ The State religion being Islam.

What about ARTICLE 3 ?

>>Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.<<

err... NO they don't..not in the slightest. Law abiding people do, but lawbreakers do NOT !

POINT 3. Non recognition by Islamic countries. If you do some searches and look up Islamic criticism of the declaration, you will discover that they feel the implementation of Islamic law gives MORE human rights. I guess the lopping off of handswhich steal and slicing and dicing of peoples heads, and stoning people to death, is included in their more generous version of human rights eh ?

POINT 4. Our Judao Christian heritage gives human rights anyway. "Do for others as you would have them do for you"

it's like this, mate(pay close attention as i will only say this once):

there are no rights independent of power. 'right' is the polite face of power.

but people without rights try to get them, by measuring their strength against those who do have power. they usually do this by gathering the support of many people, in the hope that many weak people can extract concessions from the powerful. this often works, and a new balance of power results, generating a corresponding new network of power relationships.

this is particularly evident in the general assembly of the united nations. this group, and most of it's members, is inconsequential both economically and militarily. so they talk about 'human rights', trying to create an appearance of power by sweeping all the powerless into their tent. the big powers are not fooled, and commonly ignore this activity.

australia feels securely bonded to america, and so does not identify with the small nations. it walks along one step behind the american military machine with chest puffed out, a member(associate) of the 'imperial' club.

I totally echo Demos' thoughts and have said it myself umpteen thousand times..

NO POWER=NO RIGHTS. 'RIGHTS' anyway are an illusion. There is only ONE 'thing' that people have.. "privileges" which are granted by POWER.

As Demos says.. 'human rights' are being championed by the powerLESS...and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see HOW and WHY they use that tack.

"Our political views are not top dog....lets whine about human rights to advance our political/social agenda"

Not only are 'big nations' not fooled.. I'M not fooled, neither is DEMOS and I suspect a number of other posters are also not fooled by this 'fools paradise' called Human Rights.

The only genuine 'right' is that granted by the Almighty. If you wish to explore it.. read the book of Deuteronomy. The covenant between God and Israel involved 'responsibilities and rights'... blessings and curses... If they obeyed the covenant...they had the right to expect certain things from God.. because God told them this.

POWER without conscience is horrific. CONSCIENCE without Power is useless.

Dear Kuma,

Australia is the only developed country on a World Health Organisation
'shame list' of countries where children are still blinded by tracoma.
Impoverished Sri Lanka has beaten the disease but not rich Australia.
according to the Director of the Centre for Eye Research in Sydney, Professor Hugh Taylor, up to 80% of Aboriginal children have potentially blinding trachoma because of untreated cataracts. "This is inexcusable," he said.

And that's only the tip of the iceberg - as far as Aboriginal health is concerned. (There are United Nations reports that are very damning concerning Aboriginal health).

Then there's the way the government treats its asylum seekers.
Australians caught a glimpse of these horrors perpetrated in their name when an Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme told the story of a six year old Iranian boy. Having spent a quarter of his life behind the wire of Woomera camp in the South Australian desert, he had seen desperate adults set themselves on fire and watched a suicidal man slash himself. "I think he is dead," he told his father, who said these were the last he uttered. Silent and depressed, he refused food and drink and sat day after day, drawing pictures of razor wire.

Signing a Human Rights Act would force the government to be accountable for its actions.

However, you may be intersted in looking at the following website:
www.humanrightsact.com.au

Hi,Thank you for all your replys.
Since I am a foreigner and my English ability is limited, I could not understand everything you all say, however I believe I understand what you want to say.
NO RIGHT= NO POWER= easy for politics to manage/control citizens. This is the conclusin,, isn't it?
I think this is the REAL reason why Australian goverment does not accept the Declaration of Human Rights, HOWEVER, the goverment does never say so to us.
What does Australian goverment OFFICIALLY say to us the reason WHY goverment does not accept it? What is an OFFICIAL EXCUSE not to accept the Declaration?

I am curious about this because at university, my teacher told us that Australian Govmt does not accept it and to think the reason.

Please let me know...
Thanks,
YUKO

Sorry, I put my real name for the last comment...
It was me, KUMA... (not YUKO).

Thanks.
KUMA

The simple answer is that since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - if that is the declaration that you refer to - is not binding on anyone for anything. As a result of which it has no signatories, so there is nothing for "Australia" to accept or reject.

As are all documents of this type, it is long on rhetoric and short on practical utility.

It is however, and will continue to be, a vehicle for various bodies with different ideas on how the citizenry should be managed and controlled to argue about, without the slightest danger that their words will have any impact on anything at all.

Some people love this kind of stuff. Thrive on it, even.

So, KUMA, use your thesis to examine the reasons why such documents are written in the first place. It will not be particularly edifying in terms of real life, but it will give you a good idea of what people with far too much time on their hands will get up to.

Just as long, that is, that someone - usually some poor taxpayers somewhere - pays them heaps of money to do it.

Kuma

Think of it in terms of who wins and who loses when nations sign up to human rights declarations.

Conservative political parties and the haves in society win if there are no human rights commitments because their status quo is kept intact and unthreatened. They are commonly supported by rednecks, godbotherers and the self-righteous who think life is all about the natural order (i.e. the way things are at present) self-improvement and fate.

They use rhetoric like: "Such declarations are always USED [they need to SHOUT at you] maliciously by politically marginal people and parties to extend their own sectarian agenda". And: "We're not going to be dictated to by a bunch of blacks in other countries".

Progressive political parties and the have-nots win if there are human rights commitments because these international treaties act as rallying pointsfor the powerless and set standards which challenge the powerful. They use tactics like shame through international comparisons, peer group pressure, bypassing national governments when lobbying and appealing to conscience and innate sense of decency.

They use rhetoric like: "Australia is the only developed country on a World Health Organisation 'shame list' of countries where children are still blinded by tracoma". And "Human Rights Declarations force governments to be accountable."

I think I know which side's behaviour is the more ethical and humane. But now, Kuma, watch the other side go red in the face with (ironically) moral outrage.

Australia would never accept Declaration of Human Rights simply because of its deep-rooted corrupted socio-political history. Unless & until this dynasty is over & a revolutionary change does take place, it is a sinking boat. The pretext of nationhood & patriotism is a farce. Consider the following:
Australia is the only developed country on a World Health Organisation
'shame list' of countries where children are still blinded by tracoma....

Prime Minister John Howard has received an open letter in terms of below standard education system of Australia.

We do not know the real IDs of the teachers/principals of the schools who are teaching our children & grand children.

Imagine neither John Howard nor Kevin Rudd would give priority to 'Education & Social Ethics' of the country!

The INSIDE STORY tells of a chain of web sites which are full of fake profiles. The politicians & resourceful people with strong political voice would not be able to answer the questions raised in terms of the mysterious IDs of these profiles. And now & then cases of sudden murder & abduction do take place.

UNITED NATIONS & FBI & other international law & enforcement are governing this globe & sociopaths are the slaves. And the rest are again second hand slaves.

The entire story demands an urgent attention.

FRANKGOL said:

Conservative political parties and the haves in society win if there are no human rights commitments because their status quo is kept intact and unthreatened. They are commonly supported by rednecks, godbotherers and the self-righteous who think life is all about the natural order.

FRANK..this finally struck me... that you are right :) except the 'godbothers' bit.. ur quite wrong there.

Rednecks..........correct.
Godbotherers... incorrect.
Self Righteous....correct.

If we agree that 'conservative' should be equated with the socio-economic oligarchy/elite that usually rises to the top in a democratic society, I'm of the same view as you.

You went beserk though when you linked the GB's with that.

REASONS.
-William Wilberforce fought 'conservative' forces all his life to rid Britain of the slave trade. Yet he was clearly a 'Godbotherer'.

He is not the only example, there are many more.

Honestly, you should have a peek at 'real' Christianity, which preaches 'repent'... and that means repent from corruption and evil.. including those evils which have come to underpin our increasingly sick society such as Tax revenue from poker machines, Tax Revenue from legalized prostitution etc.

Frank.. look at what John the Baptist said as he 'prepared the way' for Jesus.

Soldiers: "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."

Tax Collectors: "Don't collect any more than you are required to,"

The Crowd: "The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.

David

I agree with your starting point - that there is a problem with my use of the term 'godbotherer'.

I am using 'godbotherer' in a particular sense which is not the sense you infer. I would not include a number of authentic Christians in my definition of 'godbotherers' in this context. I have for eaxample the greatest admiration for people like Tim Costello, the Catholics for Social Justice, Alan Matheson and some others who consistently apply the teachings of Christ to social issues such as poverty, child abuse and racism.

Godbotherers, to me, are the zealots who couldn't give a stuff about those things but take every opportunity to Bible bash, to 'convert', to preach to people that poverty, child abuse, slavery etc are God's will, and the meek will find heaven in another place if only they are patient with the powerful on this Earth.

I have no time for 'Christians' who claim that God is very pleased when people become very rich. I have no time for 'Christians' who say that it is ungodly to vote but spend time and big $$$ convincing others to vote for conservative politicians to maintain the status quo.

That's some of what I meant when I said that politically conservative politicians use Christianity (and other religions as the case may be) to justify their positions of power and keep the poor and downtrodden in their 'rightful' place.

To the original poster, as Pericles pointed out, there are no signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - however Australia most definitely did vote in its favour when the bill was ratified in 1948. No nation voted against it, and the only abstentions were 6 Soviet Bloc states, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.
Indeed, former ALP Leader Doc Evatt was president of the UN general assembly when it was ratified, and helped in drafting it.

Now, whether Australia has adequately honoured the intentions of the Declaration is another thing entirely. Certainly many have argued that, for instance, our mandatory detention centres for asylum seekers are in breach of it.