Came across this organization http://www.humanrightsact.tv and their myspace page is http://www.myspace.com/humanrightsact_tv

and was wondering what the deal is with a human rights act. According to them there seems to be no reasons why we wouldn't already have one.

why does Australia not have a human rights act?

sorry if there is already discussions on this i tried looking for one but couldn't find one.

thanks for the help.

Of course we should. It's ridiculous and just plain old dodgy we don't.

It seems that the last survey on this
question was done by ANU in Canberra,
and approx. 57% of those questioned
responded that we should definitely
have a human rights act.

My ignorance was, I thought we already
had one as part of our Constitution.
Apparently we don't.

From doing a bit of googling on the
subject it seems that although
Australia has signed the treaties that
make up the International Bill of Human Rights,
none of these treaties are legally binding
in Australia.

That means that the fundamental rights
and freedoms of everyone living in Australia
are not protected by law.

That's rather frightening.
Why don't we have a human rights act?

Could some one explain?

We are desperately in need of one as the authoritarians are becoming more and more determined to rule people with force, but I have a hard time trusting our current policy-makers for making a balanced and insightful act. This goes for any bill of rights also.

There have been a few articles on this topic this year:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7509
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7459
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7343

There seems to be a sudden interest in it as a result of the 2020 summit.

As I recall, all the articles argued against the idea of a bill of rights. Spender the author of the first article and a QC, seemed to be uncomfortable with the idea of writing laws like those found in a bill of rights. I gather he thought putting them in writing would be too restrictive because we could not change our mind later. I thought that was odd, coming from a lawyer.

But not as odd as the other two articles, also by lawyers. They said it was a bad idea because politicians were more trustworthy that judges (ie, ex lawyers). I guess they would know. This one sentence summary might of sacrificed some detail for conciseness, but I am sure that is the nub of their argument. It was all a bit bizarre.

None of the arguments presented in the articles rang true to me, but I won't repeat my reasons why here.

Foxy, you are quite right, Australia is a signatory to certain UN Treaties which supposedly guarantee our rights to freedom of expression, and this is the excuse given by the government for not implementing our own Bill of Rights.

Peter Costello, at the height of the mulesing and live export campaigns mounted by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, threatened to invoke elements of the Trade Practices Act to silence animal rights protesters, but thankfully, got the push before he could do so. That would have been the "thin end of the wedge".

I believe Victoria has done quite a bit of work on human rights and civil liberties, it may be worth having a look for Victoria's Law Reform Commission material.

Cheers,
Nicky

Dear Nicky,

Thanks for your reference.
I will look it up.

You, and other posters may be interested
in the following website:

http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/

It gives a list of various interesting
references on the topic.

How about including pensioners & exclude voluntary drug users in the human rights bill.

Ofcourse we should.
In a growing multi-cultural society we need to make sure that EVERYONE is conversant with all that it means and are acceppting of it.It should then have the force of social coersion.

Knowing the habits of our legislators where would you find anyone who has the guts and how long would they take to hammer one out....forever?
socratease

individual: "exclude voluntary drug users in the human rights bill."

I presume you would include cigarette smokers in that category. Heavy drinkers should also be in there too, come to that.

Binge drinking was just defined as about 3 glasses of wine in a night, wasn't it? I guess you would has to class binge drinking as heavy drinking. I have been known to drink that much in my younger days, so I guess I would be excluded.

Do you think people who engage in other dangerous activities, especially ones that endanger innocent others, should be excluded as well. People who speed would fall into that class, I guess.

I think Australia is more in need of a Human Responsibilities Act.

Apparantly the argument revolves around Judicial (non-elected) vs government power.

Sadly.... almost without exception.. 'Human Rights' or Bills of Rights legislation are thinly cloaked poorly disguised attempts to vilify Religious faiths of the Christian persuasion.

Inevitably they will include reference to sexual orientation as a reason people cannot be disciminated against..

That is just a short hop away from "Banning all Hate speech"

which..in turn, is defined under such 'Human Rights' laws as being anything which makes people of particular classes or people groups or religions (Except... Christian) feel uncomforable.

This in turn leads to a call to ban hate LITERATURE..which of course would only include the Bible.. (Romans 1 and Leviticus 18 in particular) But not the Quran which actually calls for stoning those (in the here and now) who don't like Leviticus or Romans ..

We have seen how 'Human Rights' commissions are in fact Left wing/politically correct star chambers, and unless we want a Cromwellian reaction to them... they are not helpful.

Hi all

Polycarp, all the things you mention are covered if you look at the website under (Federal and State) Anti-Discrimination, gender discrimination and racial vilification laws already enacted, I think you'll find.

As for smokers, "binge drinkers" and other people with a higher than average proclivity for risk taking behaviour, that would rule out a substantial part of the population, I would suggesty.

"Rights" are generally accepted as having "responsibilities" attached.

Cheers
Nicky

rstuart,
Yes,once they get to a situation where they can't control themselves. It is pointless to say everyone who takes something is a voluntary user, that's just being finniky or whatever the word is. I know people who can smoke dope & drink & still have control. I also know people who go off their trolley after just one smoke & three beers. i'm merely drawing attention to the fact that some people have no control & those with control always have to bail these morons out of trouble. I have paid tax for 45 years & so-far, never once got a rebate for not having been a burden on society. yet, when I became a victim of crime & Qld health corruption I didn't even get an appology. On the other hand, drug addicts are being constantly cared for at mine & other decent taxpayers' expense. Maybe you're not old enough to worry about being a pensioner but believe one day you will be. I bet you'll comment with a different attitude when you get $400 a fortnight & your neighbor drug addict gets the pension plus costing us thousands a fortnight in rehabilitation.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT ?

sure..why not.. AS LONG AS
it protects those who are normally injured and discriminated
against by the standard ones.

For example.. when Christians are discriminated against
by homosexuals or Muslims.. for alleged class vilification or 'religious vilification' ....

As long as cultural minorities are not allowed to use such 'rights' to diminish the rights of established cultures and laws.

As long as Sikhs cannot take long bladed weapons into court
rooms and onto aircraft and to school in the name of these 'human rights'....

all will be well.

It is ludicrous to pander to off-beat or odd ball or 'strange' practices which discriminate against a majority.

That kind of thing is NOT about 'human rights' it's about
pushing a specific social agenda......

SORRRRRY.. don't want.

Yeah Boazy, we know you oppose universal human rights.

But why do you have to pretend to be someone else in order to proclaim the same old intolerance?