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.