Human Rights Commission-UN about Australia

Please read full report at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/fff3368f665eaf93c125701400444342/$FILE/G0541073.pdf

Concerns and recommendations
9. The Committee, while noting the explanations provided by the delegation, reiterates its
concern about the absence of any entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination that would
override the law of the Commonwealth (Convention, art. 2).
The Committee recommends to the State party that it work towards the inclusion
of an entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination in its domestic law.
15. The Committee notes with concern that it has proved difficult for complainants, under the
Racial Discrimination Act, to establish racial discrimination in the absence of direct evidence,
and that no cases of racial discrimination, as distinct from racial hatred, have been successfully
litigated in the Federal courts since 2001 (arts. 4 and 6).
The Committee, having taken note of the explanations provided by the delegation,
invites the State party to envisage regulating the burden of proof in civil
proceedings involving racial discrimination so that once an alleged victim
has established a prima facie case that he or she has been a victim of such
discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to provide evidence of an objective
and reasonable justification for differential treatment.
22. The Committee notes with concern reports of alleged discrimination in the grant of visas
against persons from Asian countries and Muslims, and further notes the assurances given by the
delegation that no such discrimination occurs (art. 5).
The Committee would like to receive more information on this issue, including
statistical data. The Committee reiterates that States parties should ensure that
immigration policies do not have the effect of discriminating against persons on
the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

The Committee recommends that the State party submit its
fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports in a single report, due on 30 October 2008.

Antonios.... that report said:

<<once an alleged victim has established a prima facie case that he or she has been a victim of such discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to provide evidence of an objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment.>>

To which I say NO..NO..NO!

Here is how it should read.

<<If a person feels they have been a victim of racial discrimination, THEY must PROVE IT.>>

The last thing we need is for people of ethnic minorities to tie us up in chains of legal process for something we may not have done.

Here is how the legal system works! (or should)

1/ Allegation.
2/ Evidence gathered
3/ Charges laid.

THEN..and only then, does a person have to 'defend' themselves.

"Prima Facie Case" ? in who's mind? As long as there is very compelling and sound evidence, then I can agree that the employer or whoever needs to defend him/herself... but the evidence for a 'prima facie' case would need to be very strong.

That report says that we must find a credible way to support migrants and Aborigines from race discrimination. When the victims can not find their rights in the court and the racists can avoid the punishment then we have a big problem. 75% of Australian people recognize that we are racists, the Human Rights Commission of UN officially says that the racists escape the punishment in Australia and advice the Australia to change the law, Do not you think that we have a big problem with the race discrimination in Australia and if we do control it we will have many problems in the future of cause the synthesis of Australian population? I believe that it is for our benefit, for Australia's interests to stop underestimating the Human Right Commission's concerns and recommendations
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

15. The Committee notes with concern that it has proved difficult for complainants, under the Racial Discrimination Act, to establish racial discrimination in the absence of direct evidence, and that no cases of racial discrimination, as distinct from racial hatred, have been successfully litigated in the Federal courts since 2001 (arts. 4 and 6).

Is hard to litigate without legal representation.

Even with direct evidence presented supporting complaints, complainants are denied judicial determination through denial of legal aid and thus the representation as required by the courts in order to have a fair trial of the issues.

Politicians and administrators are concerned their preferred flavors approach to racism may be challenged and ruled invalid.

Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin acts to support corruption and or totalitarian control with attempt to reinstate permit system under the ALR(NT).

The ALR(NT) permit scheme is abused by land councils, organizations and some individuals, to extort bribes, force compliance, force subservience, and force silence from people, particularly schemes to restrict free thinking and eliminate complaints.

Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin supports claims it is legal to segregate families of Australians

AS I do not support you or agree I am sorry you have been insulted but have little or no common ground with you.
Can you tell me however why your English improved to much in your last post here?

Being in total agreement with Boaz is such a significant event in my OLO life that I simply had to post.

Allowing a situation where prima facie evidence is sufficient to shift the burden of proof from plaintiff to defendant is, in my opinion, the beginning of an extremely slippery slope.

The US has already taken that step with many of the stipulations of the Patriot Act.

(Incidentally, if you have never read that document, it is well worth the effort http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.pdf)

While the concept of guilty until proven innocent is of great assistance to law enforcement agencies, it also makes them very lazy. In the case of the Patriot Act, it simply says if I decide that you are an Islamic terrorist, bent on the destruction of the United States, then it is up to you to prove me wrong.

For the United Nations, the same sentiment is encapsulated in the clause that they are looking for an "entrenched guarantee against racial discrimination that would override the law of the Commonwealth".

Hold the phone. A more democratic course of action would surely be, if we choose, to make racial discrimination an unlawful act, through the normal machinations of Parliament. This would avoid any necessity to "override the law of the Commonwealth", which should surely be an objective dear to all our hearts.

Equally, we are entitled to treat the entire issue of "discrimination" with immense care, to ensure that any laws that we do make are clear, precise and enforceable. This would instantly do away with the need to threaten people with the possibility that anyone with a sufficient grudge could concoct a prima facie case, content in the knowledge that they would not be required to prove any of it.

My natural tendency to anarchy does not extend to providing my enemies with a open invitation to destroy me, at no cost to themselves