Two factors motivated this piece :
i) I’m sitting here listening to Susan Ryan ramble on about Human Rights , and
ii) OLO has looking a bit tame lately …this should awake a few people from their Easter slumbers and, be fitting too, since some will be beying “crucify him!” ( including the ”how dare you compare yourself to Christ” mob)

It used to be said that nationalism was the last refuge of the scoundrel, surely, in this century, human rights has overtaken nationalism as the scoundrels preferred refuge.

Susan Ryan trots out the array of human rights martyrs… including…Cornelia Rau! Not a word about how such persons , might, just , have contributed to their plight by their behaviour –no, it’s purely and simply a case of big brother violating rights .

Then, she cites the illegal immigrants held in detention – they arrive here after have flouted every immigration norm – but unless they’re granted full access to services on arrival – we’re in violation of their human rights and, god knows how many UN covenants. ( thinking on a par with going to a crowded market place in Java or Calcutta and shouting ‘free board and lodging!’)

Human rights advocates have hit on a sure fire tactic, most people only remember the headlines & opening paragraph, they don’t read the fine print – so, if you repeat something often enough it will be filed away in folk memory as fact.
(as an aside: have you noticed prominent persons of labour extraction are most adroit at this – that should have Belly jumping!)

The starting point for human rights arguments is a concern to protect the rights of individuals , but it doesn’t take long before it’s clear that important decisions are to be assigned to an "enlightened" few. In this Radio National broadcast, one advocate proposed that they (the HR patricians) should implement the changes first and let the (plebeian) electorate consider the package when they’re "better educated on the issue"!

WHAT’S THE CONSENSUS ON OLO, DOES AUSTRALIA NEED A HUMAN RIGHTS WIDGET ?

So humans having a basic right to life is bad?. Move to Zimbabwe dude.

...and what's the difference between a 'refugee' and an 'illegal immigrant', according to you?.

I think we need codified CIVIL rights, based on reasonable human and political rights, but am totally against any UN sponsored "Human Rights" type garbage, it's too vague and lawyer-ridden, not to mention downright impossible to implement.
It should only apply to Australian citizens, we need a separate code for others of whatever ilk, legal and otherwise.

The right not to be offended.
The homosexual right to "procreate".
A woman's right to commit infanticide on a 35 week old foetus.
These are just some of the faux human rights which are nevertheless championed by "progressives".
Most of these "rights" are so patently wrong that they haven't a chance of being codified by the democratic process.
Or as the AHRC President Catherine Branson laments: “we cannot always trust our Parliament to pay sufficient regard to the protection of the human rights of every one in Australia”.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/op_ed/20081210_preventing.html
This is where the Australian Human Rights Commission and a proposed Charter of Rights come in.
They are designed to bypass the will of the ignorant masses so that the enlightened elite can create their dystopian state.
People like Branson and sundry judicial and quasi-judicial activists don't trust our democratically elected parliament but arrogantly expect us to trust them, a bunch of unrepresentative, unelected bureaucrats who know better than the people.
They represent the antithesis of democracy and are essentially totalitarian.

KMB, I agree with some of your post, though we differ to some degree.
I feel it's right to say we can't trust our pollies to ensure our rights, that's a given in my book, they're too willing to compromise, and have no limits to what, IMO.
I also agree that the "progressives" are in reality a "lunatic fringe", and dangerous if acted upon, however, listen we must, that's democracy, and winnow out the gems from the dross.
It's all a contentious area, and will take much discourse/discord to achieve, but the need is real.

Human rights?

Human rights - the last refuge of the righteous, just and honest.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, .....

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life,

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination

Yeah well, the 1948 Declaration does nothing to protect my rights. It's directed at 'men' and 'mankind'. Bummer.

A Human Rights declaration that doesn't cover half the people in the world? Yep, those pesky "scoundrels" sure have a lot to answer for, huh?

:13: Those words and clauses you selected sound all well and good, but the implementation is a whole 'nuther story, isn't it.
And what about all the ones you left out, they get worse, and more unlikely/impossible to enact with any success.
There's so much room for interpretation and maneuvering that they are effectively meaningless.

Dear Horus,

Human rights: the last refuge of the scoundrel?

Not according to Geoffrey Robertson ("Hypotheticals," fame).

He's had a book published this year by Random House
entitled, "The State of Liberty - How Australians
can take back their rights."

His is a very interesting contribution to the Australian
Human Rights Debate. If you can get hold of a copy
(your local library shoud have one), I'd strongly
recommend it.

Anyway, Geoffrey Robertson summarizes the situation thus:

"Civil Liberties are not privileges granted at the
discretion of the powerful, they are rights capable
of assertion by members of the public.

That's why a Human Rights Charter is a Statue of Liberty,
because it takes a small amount of power back from the
Government and the MPs and the Public Service, and
restores it to the people who, in any democracy are
entitled to it, and, in any advanced democracy other
than Australia, actually possess it."

I didn't know that Australia does not have a Human Rights
Charter. It seems that we're the only "civilized"
country that doesn't.

Is it because we're still a colony of Britain - so how
come they have one?

Interesting.

I admit to some concern over how a Human Rights Bill, Charter or Declaration might take form.

Sometimes the interpretation of a human right may lead to the unfair treatment of another sector of people.

Of course there are some obvious ones that might be included. Like Article 4 in the US Constitution: No one shall be held in slavery.

There may also be some grey areas which interpret needs as rights. One website I read on this issue (I will try and find the link) mentions water as a 'possible' right. Is water a right or a need? Should it be included?

There are also problems with definition that might be found in sections like the Right To Life and abortion. The right of a mother to have control over her own body or the right of an unborn foetus. Who has the greater right? How and when do we define life? Who decides and why?

Then we have issues like land mines and child soldiers which can be dealt with in signed treaties.

Villification and freedom of expression need to be carefully defined. Most of us know the difference and take responsibility for our freedoms but how do you protect people from prejudice. And if you do how can you ensure it is not abused.

This does not mean I am against a charter of rights but it would depend the breadth and depth of the rights to be enshrined. Could a charter of rights be misinterpreted, used illegitimately (or at least argued) and overall abused?

I must admit to being a bit cautious on this issue as well.

Unless people believe in the rights of the unborn the whole exercise is hypocrisy at its best. Judges have an atrocious record in this nation and it would be foolish to put them in charge of the social agenda. The bill of rights inevitably becomes the bill of wrongs as in other nations. Giving our judges more power is as dumb as giving the incompetent UN power to push its agenda.

The real problem underlying everything is the imbalances that exist in life. When you change the law, all you do is give another group the driving position. If it's not the judges making biased decisions, it's the police or any other powerful group who happens to be on the perceived "right" side of the dividing line.

The truth is that a Human Rights Act will have unpredictable consequences. While I'm all for the sentiment and idea behind it, there's no way of knowing what the impact of it will be as it is actually practised.

Australia certainly does not need a Bill of Rights. Despite what they say, judges and lawyers do take over the role of elected representatives.

Leftist, like the ex-Labor politician referred to by Horus, have to continually look for ways to undermine society. The ‘rights’ issue is one of their tools.

Horus has also noticed that these people seem more concerned about the ‘rights’ of illegal entrants; Australian citizens rarely get a mention. So the motive behind the yapping of these activists is not the betterment of their own country and countrymen, but for people who want to lob here without invitation, demand rights, but spit on obligations. Using Cornelia Rau as an example of the need for an upgrade of human rights (as Horus reports than Ryan did) is ludicrous. The woman had personal problems which contributed to a mistake made by Immigration. She has recently been incarcerated after wandering around Syria, unmedicated. The Australia Government was blamed, even for that foreign sojourn, by relatives.

Rights are those which we have legislated for over a long, long time. (In the West, that is. The people we are supposed to extend more rights to than we have ourselves don’t come from the West). When people say, “I have the right to….” It usually means that they have the right to get their own way. Rights are only those which are legislated and enforceable. Even then, the ‘right to life’ and some others which would seem pretty basic to most of us do not guarantee life. If someone is going to take your life, there is not much point in using your supposed right to life as a defensive measure.

The rights debate has been instigated and pushed by people who will never be happy in any society. The lawyers, judges and, perhaps, politicians have personal motives – more power and prestige, or more time to look after themselves and future prospects where politicians are concerned. The others should be written off as nutters who don’t know when they are well off

In Teoh case the High Court ruled the United Nations declaration created legally binging expectations and obligations on the Commonwealth.

Justices of the High Court betrayed trust placed in them by Australians concerning their Constitution and its amending, failing to restrain Commonwealth within Australian peoples anti- discriminatory goals and purposes - both at Federation and 1967, for NO legislation discriminating between Australians on racial grounds.

Disgracefully the High Court permits Commonwealth legislation making it lawful to discriminate, to segregate, treat differently on racial grounds, to permit Commonwealth require we tick boxes on their forms for racial grouping of Australians, all so Commonwealth can practice racism easier.

Wailers re NT Emergency legislation did not seek turn off discriminatory practices.

Wailed for racially discriminatory practices, particularly within the ALR(NT) and related acts.

Meaningless if when seek issues resolved IF need be resolved in court for the Commonwealth refuses, thwarts legal aid requests.

Denial of legal representation despite requirement by Courts, delays cases.

Ongoing see denial of Traditional Owner(s) otherwise held rights as Australians for their family to live with or visit them in their home.

Since ALR(NT) 30 years ago see ongoing failure, ongoing denial, refusal to issue tenants leases for their houses all constructed using public grants monies - because giving leases will give tenants rights!

Leases are central to development, so little actually occurs within communities, is hard to attract investments, hard obtain commitments of private capital, hard to satisfy banks give home loans...

Result is ongoing requirement people beg or comply with corrupt racist practices... and now we see failed education, failed because refuse to teach...

13, ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW AND ARE ENTITLED WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Take a look at the present situation in Fiji.

Quote from newspaper -- The country has had an extraordinary few days sparked by a court ruling last Thursday that prime minister Frank Bainimarama’s regime, in power since a 2006 coup , was illegal under it’s 1997 constitution.

The following day, the country’s ailing elderly president and Bainimarama ally, Ratu Josefa Ilollo, backed up by the military sacked the judges, dissolved the constitution and ruled out any election for five years. The few international reporters on the ground, the last Bastion of press freedom in the country, were deported yesterday.

This idea of human rights is a lovely idea, but if the men holding the guns, the warlords or the army don’t like the judges they are likely to imprison them or shoot them.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again forget law courts and rights they are no damm good to you if the men with the guns and power are not on your side.