What is it about

Human rights that brings out the

Worst in some people?

Conservatives and

Christians seem outraged if

Others assert rights

Simple answer- UN human rights law is not binding, and domestic laws (more likely tailored to suit the region best) should always hold priority over ones an independent NGO feels we aught follow instead.
Justice Bell was out of line.

Not so Al, this is common under the Australian Charter and nothing to do with the UN Human Rights legislation.

http://www.hrlrc.org.au/content/topics/housing/eviction-from-public-housing-without-adequate-justification-a-breach-of-human-rights-vcat-31-march-2010/

The tenant was a refugee and the reason for the eviction order was because the original named tenant (the mother) had died. The complainant and his three year old son were living with the mother for some time prior to her death.

The mistake was in an earlier refusal to allow the son to take over his mother's lease due to a rental debt. This decision was later revealed to be a mistake on the part of Housing as oultined here. As a long term resident with his mother and son, the complainant was not perceived as a queue jumper.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/human-rights-trump-public-housing-eviction-20100405-rn4a.html

Nothing to do with the UN at all.

You've just spoiled another Boaz story, pelican.

>>Nothing to do with the UN at all<<

Once again, Boaz, you failed dismally to check your facts.

>>The reason Justice Bell declared it 'unlawful' was because of "Human Rights Law" which...according to him.. trumped Australian law. If Aussie "law" which was produced by our democratically elected representatives is declared UNlawful in favor of a different law which we did NOT vote for..... can anyone think of a word which describes such a state of affairs?<<

The legislation referred to in the tribunal is the Victorian Government's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/s1.html

Can anyone think of a word to describe someone who, in their quest to rubbish the "massive conspiracy of the Left", gets their facts so consistently, completely and dramatically wrong?

AGIR:

Just a brief summary of His Honour's - Justice Bell's decision - which I googled to get the full story: Firstly public tenancy agreements have to be consistent with the Charter of Human Rights - that is the law in this country. Therefore Justice Bell merely upheld the law. He held that the decision and conduct of the Director of Public Housing in seeking to evict My Sudi (Somalian refugee) and his son (after living and caring for his cancer
suffering mother - who died, for several years, in their public housing home) was a breach of the right to family and the home under s 13(a) of the Charter and thus unlawful pursuant to s 38(1). As the Director's making an application for a possession order without justification was unlawful under the Charter - it was not a legally valid application properly made under 344 of the Residential Tenancies Act. The Director's application was therefore dismissed.

Hi Folks, welcome aboard.. 'lettttts GO'....

The background to this was the "Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibities"

where they ASSURED us... no.. it won't become 'law'....hah!

The decision is apalling and has been appealed. I assure you, the legal dept at the dept of Housing is 'enthusiastic' about pursuing this.

INTENTION TO HIGHLIGHT... I confess.. I'm deliberately raising this case to highlight the festering sore on Australian sovereignty where 'Human Rights' (aka Socialist law) is being used to undermine our sovereignty.. AS I SAID IT WOULD.. (now there is a Beck-ism)

I've been ranting, raving, persuading, begging, telling, informing and generally being regarded as an extremist spook for saying these things.. and humanist bishop Pericles and his deacon CJ Morgan and deaconess's Bronwyn and Foxy all poo poo'd the idea.

The "international" treaty relevant is probably the 'Convention on civil and political rights' (I'll look further into this)

SO.... QUESTIONs.

1/ Is...Australia Sovereign?
2/ Did...we vote to be under the legal jurisdiction of a foreign power? (UN)
3/ What happens when a COUP D'ETAT takes place? is it not that a 'new law' is established by the conquering power?

I call this a bloodless coup.

This is but the thin end of the wedge. Trust me...I watch Glenn Beck! :)

Seriously.. does anyone NOT find it rather worrisome that our law is

a) Countermanded by "human rights" law
b) Now required to pass through a "human rights" filter when being enacted?

I find this intolerable. Considering that most (it would seem) people calling themselves by the 'Human Rights' label are communists in drag.. it is specially worrying.

Maryam Namazi (UK Human Rights campaigner)and..... Central Committee member of the Worker Communist Party of Iran

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_Namazie


You don't have to scratch too hard to reveal a pink/red tone under the skin of a 'human rights' activist. (and I don't mean blood