Some Australian politicians and media are criticising violations of human rights in China, Cuba and elsewhere while ignoring such violations in our own country. Does not this look cynical and hypocritical?
There is a number of cases revealing continuing severe violation of democratic principles and human rights in Queensland, which local authorities and political forces appear unable or unwilling to address.
These are cases of Queensland Police acting above the law and not responsible for its alleged crimes and misconduct. The most known case is Palm island death in police custody from unnatural causes, consequent local residents’ riot and burnt down police station, for which no-one of police officials was held criminally and even administratively responsible.
Although to a lesser extent, Vincent Berg’s case also demonstrates continuing severe violation of democratic principles and human rights in Queensland, as local authorities refuse to investigate alleged police crimes and misconduct associated with Vincent Berg’s criminal case stating that it cannot be done before the conclusion of Vincent Berg’s case in the courts. Yet, letters received from the courts reveal that there exists no legal obstacle for an immediate commencement of required criminal investigation.
Such cases when police officers are acting above the law, committing criminal offences and misconduct and not being held criminally and administratively responsible present severe violation of human rights (in particular, the principle of equality of all persons before the law) and real threat for democracy.

I agree with you that Australia should sort out its own human rights issues before criticising others, but I think you drew two rather weak arguments here.

Does the Palm Island incident constitute a systemic breach of human rights? If Chris Hurley did, in fact, kill Mr. Doomadgee through an act of police brutality, is this a human rights violation? If so, then all murders are human rights violations and no society is without guilt. He was held to account, both criminally and administratively. In accordance with human rights requirements, he was given a trial and acquitted. Others caught up in this - including allegedly corrupt police - have also been and continue to be held to account. I know (indirectly) the families of some of these officers, and know that they haven't simply "walked away" from the matter without consequence. Again, though - police corruption is a criminal matter, being dealt with (albeit ineptly, some would say) by our legal system. Is there really a human rights breach here? Certainly the broader issue of death in custody may indicate a human rights issue, but we can't really compare a single criminal case with the human rights violations of China and Cuba, et al.

I tried to find out more about the Vincent Berg case but, as the only connection I could find between him and criminal acts on the part of police came from you (comment at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/the-nobel-peace-prize-as-it-was/20101011-16fxy.html), I can't really comment. Is the human rights issue here the failure of hospital authorities to report Berg's false qualifications to patients/victims? Or is there something else we don't know about?

Dear Otokonoko,
Medical authorities could not and should not “report Berg’s false qualifications to patients/victims” (by the way, there were no ‘victims’ pronounced by any independent medical experts), because this allegation has never been legally proved. Dr Vincent Berg denies that his medical credentials are false, and the latter remains nothing more but an unproved allegation. Thus, public accusations of Dr Vincent Berg appeared as obvious violation of his right for presumption of innocence until it is legally proved otherwise.
Yet, this is discussion about numerous violations in Queensland of such human right and fundamental principle of democracy as equality of all persons before the law. There have been a number of reports about police acting above the law and walking away without any punishment or with much easier punishment than it would be applied for similar offence to an ordinary person.
Let us imagine that an aboriginal man ‘accidently’ fell on a policeman, and the latter died shortly because his liver was torn into halves. Would such a case receive similar treatment in Queensland, which was given to the Palm Island case, and similar outcome as well?
Let us fantasize that Vincent Berg tortured police officers by sleep deprivation after which they were hospitalised, issued false statements and affidavits to the courts, fabricated evidence , and so forth in regard to police officers. Would in such a case Queensland authorities be as unwilling to initiate a criminal investigation as they are in vice versa case?
I do believe the answers to these questions are obvious.

I also agree with you that Australia should sort out its own human rights issues first and that your examples are weak but I'd discuss the Palm Island example more strongly.

It is a total absurdity to suggest that Chris Hurley killed Mulrunji through an act of brutality. That is a media beat up without substance. The detailed knowledge of the incident available to the public makes that crystal clear.

Additionally, Hurley was singled out for criminal prosecution in circumstances where the DPP, after consulting with a Supreme Court judge experienced in Criminal Law cases, advised that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute and even went on the line by publically commenting that it was a tragic accident. That happens every day of the week with no trial resulting. A parallel investigation by the police hating CMC drew the same conclusion and no disciplinary trial went ahead. Hurley was then singled out in an unprecedented Attorney General launch of prosecution. He faced a District Court trial and received a not guilty verdict. This hardly has Queensland as a place condoning human rights violations unless Hurley is considered to be the one to have experienced a violation.

The initial investigators knew Hurley and acted improperly and were promptly replaced by the Queensland Police Service. Noone in police or government has supported their actions. They were criticised for having a meal at Hurley's house although ironically Jessie Street's son was not criticised for visiting Mulrunji's family socially during his investigation.

The relevant police were held to account and continually tarred and feathered in the media in spite of their offensive behaviour being relatively minor and a label of corrupt would be an exageration.

As Otokonoko said a death in custody may indicate a human rights issue and ironically Hurley's complaint to the Federal Committee a year before the incident that there is no alternative but to bring drunk and disorderly people to a watchhouse highlights the fact that death in custody recommendations had not been properly adopted by the Queensland government. However it is incomparable with the human rights violations internationally.

"Would such a case receive similar treatment in Queensland...?"

You are suggesting that in that situation similar treatment would not occur. I'm sure you are guessing correctly to the extent that it would be different.

If an aboriginal man fell on a policeman and death resulted in circumstances where it was clearly accidental the DPP would find insufficient evidence for trial and the Queensland Government would not have dared intervene and give that man inequal treatment before the law. There would never have been a trial. Can you imagine the outcry if it had been an aboriginal man who had been singled out for a unique prosecution? Beattie would have rightly been considered the biggest racist this side of South Africa. It just would not happen.

I note your description "an aboriginal man ‘accidently’ fell on a policeman". That seems like a rather loaded and rhetorical account of two men falling down into a watchhouse onto a concrete floor with the 110kg one falling on top. IMHO it downplays it rather misleadingly.

Dr Ranson who gave evidence at the coronial enquiries gave a much better description of how the injuries would occur in a fall.

How the injury could be caused
"The compressive forces capable of causing this type of injury
usually require the body to be fixed against a hard surface such as a
wall or firm ground when the pressure is applied to the upper
abdomen. The application of the crushing force in these
circumstances needs to occur over a relatively small area if the liver
alone is lacerated. Force being applied over a large area might be
expected to cause other internal lacerations, for example tears to the
bowel mesentery. To cause this type of liver laceration, an extremely
high degree of force would be required to be applied over the whole
of the front of the body whereas a lesser degree of force would be
required to cause this injury if the force was applied over a small
area in the midline of the upper abdomen."

Continued

How it could happen with 2 men struggling downstair into the watchhouse:
"A complicated fall where two individuals fall together from a
standing position would not usually cause the liver laceration seen in
this man unless during the process of the fall a small area of direct
crushing pressure was applied to the front of the upper abdomen with
the back or posterior lateral aspect of the body fixed against a hard
surface. The circumstances in which this might happen are extremely
variable but if a large person were to fall in an accelerated or
uncontrolled fashion on top of an individual who was lying on their
back on the ground, such that a small part of their body, for example,
a knee applied a crushing type force to the upper abdomen, it is
possible that such a liver laceration might be caused."

Hurley and Mulrunji were struggling when Mulrunji missed a stair and they both fell into the watchhouse. The surface that Mulrunji was on was a concrete floor. Hurley was definitely a large person at 201cm and 110kg. Witnesses indicated that Mulrunji fell first so he would have been the one with the liver 'fixed against the concrete floor' if Hurley fell on him.

That is the fall 'theory'. Saying he fell on top of him sounds like they were standing around and they just tripped over with Hurley on top with his whole body. It would be ludicrous to suggest that that would cause a death.