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

Leigh, you beat me to it. This Antonios is an anti-Australian racist that has come to our country, taken all he can, then bit the hand that fed him.
His agenda seems to be 'shut the majority up for the good of the minority'. He also fails (in other threads) to take on any evidence presented against his rants.
I really don't know why he lives here if it's so bad. Oh, of course - it's so much better here than where he came from.

Symeonakis's remarks on everything about Australia are insulting to our country. I repeat my suggestions for him to go away.

It's high time we Australians stood up to the racist immigrants who are allowed to come here.

Jack the Lad,

Too right. I posted the above before I read your post.

You will have noticed the names of people in all of these 'anti-discrimination', 'racist' and 'human rights' organisations are generally alien ones. They have wormed their way into the good books of our pathetic vote-grabbing politicians in attempt to enforce the most unreasonable and unrealistic strictures on Australians.

It is quite clear that immigrants now wish to impose their own little colonies on Australia. It's hard to know why they came here if they are worse off here than where they were.

Referring to Melbourne as the 'largest Greek city outside Greece', is one slogan that really gets up my nose. The cities of Australia are Australian!

It's well past time since kow-towing to ingrates from overseas was knocked in the head.

I agree with both Pericle's and Boaz's comments.

In relation to this part of the ASymeonakis's first post:
"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."

This paragraph only states "reports of alleged discrimination" not proof and is asking for more information. In other words the jury is still out. From what I understand the granting of Visas is based on information provided by the applicant - if there is insufficient information, medical issues, lack of identification papers or other failure to disclose etc then I imagine a Visa would not be granted.

A complaint about the failure to obtain a Visa does not mean that discrimination in fact occurred. While government departments are not perfect, in my experience, they generally bend over backwards to adhere to EEO and anti-discrimination requirements but the rules on the granting of Visas should not be compromised because of a fear of perceived discrimination.

Antonios - don't let Leigh and JackTheLad's comments throw you. Leigh's among the first to admit that his opinions are out of kilter with most of the posters here.

I for one, think his opinions are way out of whack with the rest of Australia, so if you've run afoul of him, then you're doing just fine.

He also hates the idea of posters criticising him, saying that he basically should be able to vent his opinion then be left without any refuting comments - though it appears fine for him to attack other posters.

So basically, don't pay his rantings any heed.
I'm sure he'd be just as glad to see the rear end of me, envisioning me as some kind of ungrateful Australia-hater, but that's okay, because his posts are always laced with such vitriol that I take his insults as compliments.
Frankly, I think such a negative attitude places him in no position to dictate who should be in Australia, as if we were all of a similar attitude it wouldn't be the great place it is to live.

Anyhow, don't let it throw you.

There are some persons who do not respect migrant's rights to express their thoughts. In an other thread I wrote for migrants rights and if I think it is necessary I will open a thread about it.
I wrote that <<I believe that it is for our benefit, for Australia's interests to stop underestimating Human Right Commission's concerns and recommendations>>. When there is a problem we solve it, the Human Rights Commission has huge experiences and knowledges about this kind of problems.
Belly you ask me --why your English improved to much in your last post here?-- In my first post of this thread I wrote only --Please read the full report at: -- the rest is from the Human Rights' report.
The second post is only seven lines!! I will be happy if I improve my English so fast but I do not think.
Belly are you really a Unionist? Why do not you use your real name? Unionists are proud and brave persons and avoid to use fake names.
You know in most countries the nationalist Unionists are more than the internationalist Unionists but it is good if we know their real names.
I did not expect to agree with me many persons but as you understand The Human Rights Commission of UN is the most important Organization from the UN. At least did you read the full report?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

TurnRightThenLeft, I was surprsed by your 'encouragement' for Antonios.

Do you really think that it's OK for an immigrant to come here, take all that's going, then run down our country?

Even when his accusation of Adelaide not having non-Anglo street names etc was shot down in flames, rather than replying to it, he went on another rave. I assume that you read the previous posts in this thread, so do you agree with all Antonios has written?

An interesting concept just occurred to me...

If David Hicks would have had someone like Antonios on his side -
How long do you think the Americans would have gotten away with holding Hicks?

I know if I was ever in trouble anywhere - I'd be praying they'd send someone like Antonios to help me. Rather than some "namby pamby" like Kevin Andrews, Downer, or Phillip Ruddick.

Cheers.

ASymeonakis,
There are many Australians who don't have much regard or respect for the UN or their idiotic Human Rights commission. They should worry about China and African and South American countries, and others where Human right are non existant, instead of poking their noses in here.

Whats the UN doing for the people of Zimbarbwie, Kenya and other dictatorships. What about the human rights of all those Iraqis that Saddam murdered and put through a shredder.

A few years back the head of the UN HRC, a Mary something or other, came here telling us what we should be doing. Her trip was an utter waste of time and money. No wonder they get little respect.

We are one of the best and open societies in the world and you complain to the UN. Both you and the UN should think up better things to do.

Migrants come here as our guests and their rights are what we bestow on them. If they become citizens, which is not difficult, they then have the same rights as the rest of us.

Oh, and don't forget the RESPONSIBILITIES that go with that.

"Even when his accusation of Adelaide not having non-Anglo street names etc was shot down in flames,....."
Posted by Jack the Lad, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 6:00:29 PM

Really? It depends on whose view you accepted. Oh yes! It was Leigh!

(Loved the law according to BOZO, btw.)

Migrants come here as our guests??

Migrants are not guests, they are citizens of Australia!

Here we go again!

Hey! Banjo, do I REALLY have to explain the difference between citizenship and naturalization to you?

by ASymeonakis
Thank you for your following reply and supplying following _link

To pale>
litigated Concluding observations of the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination
AUSTRALIA
and read the Concerns and recommendations about migrants
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Sunday, 17 February 2008 6:13:58 PM

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/fff3368f665eaf93c125701400444342/$FILE/G0541073.pdf

*11. The Committee is concerned about the abolition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Commission (ATSIC), the main policy-making body in Aboriginal affairs consisting of elected indigenous representatives. It is concerned that the establishment of *a board of appointed experts to advise the Government on indigenous peoples’ issues, as well as the transfer of mostCERD/C/AUS/CO/14 page 3programmes previously provided by the ATSIC and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Service to government departments, will reduce the participation of indigenous peoples in *decision-making and thus alter the State party’s capacity to address the full range of issues.

Pales asks ASymeonakis,
Thanks for posting that ASymeonakis regarding with aboriginal people
I have copied part of comments to us and was appreciate if you could please explain what you mean by your reply to Taryn that was for our people?

Considering you replied to pale the following we are a bit confused- I hope you understand our question a little clear this time ASymeonakis as this is the third time we have tried to seek a reply. We have a big interest to help aboriginal people. Today the new Ministers advisor invited the programe for closer inspection. Early days but hopeful with a new Government.
Thank you we look forward to you kind reply

Dear TarynW
I don not know many thinks about the ASTIC and I did not write anything about it. SURE I SUPPORT ABORIGINES AND I STAND BY THEM 100% but I did not write anything about ASTIC. --I heard you were concerned about the Government taking over the funding for ASTIC that was forour people--
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 23 February 2008 5:19:13 PM

Nearly forgot the question= What did you mean by -

"the funding for ASTIC that was for our people"-=-? Who are Our people?

Dear People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming,
The report is not from me but from Human Rights Commission of UN, Now I understand what did you asked me before and I did not answered to you, I am sure your English are better than mine. Read it again, Thank you
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

ASymeonakis,

Yes I read it again. I am asking you again what did you mean when you said the funding was for 'our' people?

I was wondering if perhaps you only have one little part of the story. for example=

Are you familiar with the 'unpublished'; other reasons' for the government stopping the funds going through ATSIC?

Are you aware of the very large number of poor aboriginal who can not read join the Muslim Faith?

Why were you so outraged at he government stopping the payments to ASTIC given that its clear they squandered their own peoples lives future and betrayed them?

ASymeonakis,said

Do you know many who deported of cause their Union activities? do not speak to me about the Union and Union Movement when you do not know anything about me or the Union Movement. I wrote some simple things and you can not understand what I say or I mean. You do not know and you can not understand very basics about the Union Movement, Migrants , Muslims or Aborigines.

pale replies

No I dont know anybody who was deported because of their union activity ASymeonakis but as you said you worked there could you please explain that.
Who got deported - if not who.
What Activitys? If there is something unfair going on as you indicate then people should know about it.
However it is up to you to explain it. Leaving off names that would identify people could you please give us an example of what you are talking about.

Are you saying the the Howard Government misused the laws to keep unions at bay?

It wouldnt surprise me what any of them did as I am aware the Department of foreign affairs and trade promote co joint ventures in the ME with Australia.
The only problem with that is they promote it the wrong way around.

Instead of Austrade and our Australian Government promoting value adding in our own country to provide employment for regional and aboriginal people they promote sending our goods off in their most vaulable forom before value adding.

Ginx, when you wrote

'"Even when his accusation of Adelaide not having non-Anglo street names etc was shot down in flames,....."
Posted by Jack the Lad, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 6:00:29 PM

Really? It depends on whose view you accepted. Oh yes! It was Leigh!'

what in the name of the wee man were you getting at? Do you think that my post that Adelaide has many non-Anglo street names and suburbs is untrue? Why don't you buy a UBD before you post again?

You purported earlier to have lived in Adelaide for 30 years so you should know better.

Also, migrants are not citizens until officially accepted as such. Been there, done that, have the fancy certificate.

Dear People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
You asked me if I am aware of the very large number of poor aboriginal who can not read join the Muslim Faith?
1. I am atheist and I do not care very much about religious.
2. I am democrat and I respect the right of any person to change his/her religious
3. WHAT DO YOU MEAN <<aboriginal who can not read join the Muslim Faith>> When they became Christians they did not read too.
4. People change religious when they are not happy with their current religious. Did you try to find why aborigines leave Christianity and become Muslims? If we do not change the conditions which make them to leave the Christianity then we can not do many things to stop them.
If Christians are unfair with aborigines, if we ignore and violate their rights, if we are TOP HYPOCRITES then it is very logic aborigines to become Muslims.
5. No I do not worry from the << poor aboriginal who can not read>> I worry from the big sharks who are ready to do everything, from wars to violation of any human right, from genocides to climate changes.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

"TurnRightThenLeft, I was surprsed by your 'encouragement' for Antonios.
Do you really think that it's OK for an immigrant to come here, take all that's going, then run down our country?"

... do you agree with all that he has written?"

I don't have to. For the record, I actually agree with boaz and pericles regarding the onus of proof.

As for "do I think it's okay for an immigrant to come here then run down our country".

Yep. I do. I don't see it as 'running down' our country, I see it as one person's constructive criticism. If Antonios had said "I hate Australia" then you might be on to something.

The alternative, Jack, is what? A gag on immigrants? Once you're a citizen, you're a citizen, you can say whatever the hell you like. I don't have to like it or agree, but I do agree with antonios in that there's a lot of racism.

There's also a superiority complex - I think some anglo Australians think they're 'better' than immigrants. When I see some beer fuelled yob with a flag on his head trying to tell a hardworking immigrant how to be Australian I hope to hell that immigrant ain't listening.

I reiterate - I've not seen him say he hates Australia. He's spoken out against racism.

As for the "you don't like it, then leave" argument, I've always thought that is utter crap, because then, if something ever goes wrong with our country, people won't stick around to fix it.

Imagine if everyone had that mindset? Just bugger off when you don't like something?

No! Speak out about an issue you feel is wrong. That's Australian. That's what he's doing, even if you don't agree. It's more constructive than that 'Un-Australian' crap.

The attitude that 'if you're a migrant shut up and don't criticise' sickens me.

It is possible a high level bureaucrat, who loved his Italian or Greek wife , gave her name to a street, it is possible to find a non Anglo Saxon name on a small street but I DO NOT SPEAK FOR THIS!
I supposed people who read or write on this forum are honest, brave and their IQ is enough high to understand what we mean. I do not speak for exceptions but for the rules. If in an area which developed mainly from migrants, where live mainly migrants, there are 1000 streets and you found 5 Non Anglo Saxon street names, then these names are the exceptions not the rule.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

TurnRightThenLeft, when Antonios makes allegations (for example Adelaide has no non-Anglo street names or suburbs) and is proved wrong yet, instead of replying to that, goes on with more ranting, this is not 'constructive criticism' as you labelled it.

While I would not suggest a 'gag', I feel that immigrants should at least show some appreciation for the country that has let them in rather than whinge and complain that it does not fit all their ideals.

As for your agreeeing with Antonios that there is a lot of racism, you are right. Many immigrants, Antonios included, are anti-Australian racists. Anglo and Celtic Australians made this country so in fairness, can't you see their annoyance when someone comes in with next to no knowledge of our customs etc and expects everything to change to suit them.

Maybe when I arrived I should have demanded a public holiday for St Andrew's Day.

Antonios, there are much more than 5 non-Anglo street names per 1000 in Adelaide. Buy a UBD and check it out.

Dear Antonio
I also asked you these other questions=

1 Why were you so outraged at he government stopping the payments to ASTIC given that its clear they squandered their own peoples lives future and betrayed them?
2 What did you mean when you said to Taryn that ATSIC funding was for our people? You still have not answered] You go on in another thread to say to us that you know nothing of ATSIC Forgive me ifI am a little confused. I just wanted to understand and clear that up.

The Good Muslim people we meet with raised this as a concern some time ago
They were concerned that wherever you have a lower educationn and poverty standards its a open invitation for extreme people to try to [perswade the vonerable.
There wasa lot of talk about a New political Groups of more ectreme muslims trying to sway some aboriginal folk to get involved

We are still confused by your comment your not sure we care about aborignal people and wondered if you could explain please what you meant.
We think its a good thing that ASTIC was replaced.
of course they is MUCH work to be done
As far as I am concerned Aboriginal people must come first.
This is Australia an we owe them everything. You seem to be very aggressive toward us despite knowing we work with aboriginal programes and Muslim Leaders to improve Animal Welfare and their lives in one.
Its almost like you saw us as the enermy:)

Lets be honest JTL; I have never bothered myself with your incorrect ramblings before, and I won't now. You childish reference to buying a UBD (ha!) is rather sad.

You carry on, you have obsessed about my posts before;- you have little grasp of our city, and quite frankly I doubt you could post on anything unless you had a reference book in your hand!

Antonios knows his turf, and so do I. I know you from old so you WILL now go on and on.

I will ignore you as he has. You and I both know that this has little to do with Adelaide street names. It has more to do with your vendetta against me. I disagreed with your comment, which 'most' did not even comment on! But TO disagree with you was a risk that would start you of again. And here you go.....

Dear People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
You asked me again.
1 Why were you so outraged at he government stopping the payments to ASTIC given that its clear they squandered their own peoples lives future and betrayed them?
2 What did you mean when you said to Taryn that ATSIC funding was for our people? You still have not answered] You go on in another thread to say to us that you know nothing of ATSIC Forgive me ifI am a little confused. I just wanted to understand and clear that up.
I said you that this report is from Human Rights Commission of UN, I did not write anything about it for the simple reason I do not know enough good the whole story. THIS IS NOT MINE, I DID NOT WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT IT, what else do you want to tell you, I am not angry with you simple this is not mine and I do not know it enough good to give you a responsible answer.
I am honest and clear with you and you do not like to understand me.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Back to your old form, Ginx. I don't agree with you so I am having a 'vendetta' against you.
If you knew your turf, you would agree that there are many non-Anglo street names and suburbs but, no, you'd rather start another of your little rants.
Where will it end? You having another hissy fit and then refraining from posting for a few weeks?
BTW, when has correcting you when you're wrong equated to being obsessed? Obviously you still don't like to be corrected.
If you are professing to ignore me (possibly because I upset your little ego) why did you start this with your post of Tuesday, 26 February 2008 8:17:27 PM?

.................But TO disagree with you was a risk that would start you of again. And here you go...................

!!

Poor wee Ginx.

Jump into a discussion with your unfounded comments then, when I reply, you come up with your illusion that I only reply to your posts to upset you and then you wrote 'But TO disagree with you was a risk that would start you of (off or of?) again. And here you go...................!!' Twice. Have you a stutter? It's not all about you.

You really are a special case.

Poor wee persecuted Ginx.

No.2

.................But TO disagree with you was a risk that would start you of again. And here you go...................

!!