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.