Essay on Human Rights

These include freedom of opinion, thought, association and freedom from arbitrary detention and are all about treating others fairly and being fairly treated yourself, and making genuine choices in daily life. Wilson says ‘Respect for human rights underpins the democratic processes of our society and is the cornerstone of a society that respects individuals and voluntary community collaboration’ (Tim Wilson, 2014). Despite this, the control the Australian Government exercised over its people in WWII encroached on all of these universally recognized human rights, and it was in 1948 after the atrocity of WWII that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was internationalised.

After looking at other example of Bills of Rights around the world, with America having theirs for 224 years, Canada having implemented theirs for 30 years and the UK for 17 years, Australia needs to consider each nation’s Bill of Rights’ respective strengths and weaknesses when considering our own Bill of Rights in order for it to best suit the current and future society. Canada adopts something of the middle ground between the strongly entrenched rights in the United State’s constitution and the United Kingdom where the British parliament remains supreme with a weak level of right entrenchment, making it perfect for the situation in Australia.

Every year, thousands of people seek refuge in Australia after being forced to flee their homes. Under the UN 1951 Refugee convention, countries are obliged to protect refugees and basic human rights must be upheld. However, Australia is violating these laws. As of August 2013, a report by the Australian Human Rights

Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Jones and I am a currently a human rights lawyer. Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that everyone is entitled to purely for simply just being a human being. Today I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with you the greatly debated issue of an Australian Bill of Rights. Australia currently does not have a Bill of Rights, but is the current legal system coping without one? The answer to that question in my opinion is no. Australia currently is not adequately protecting individual human rights without having a Bill of Rights. While many people would argue that yes, Australia protects individual rights well enough as it is, just as many people passionately argue that Australia does indeed need a Bill of Rights for a variety of reasons which will be talked about in greater depth later on. In my talk with you today, I would like to discuss with you all what exactly a Bill of Rights is and what it aims to achieve, how a Bill of Rights has worked in other countries and some of the more popular arguments for and against having one.

Human rights act 1998 – specifies and enforces the rights of individuals and if these

Currently, human rights in Australia are protected in different ways. Unlike most other similar liberal democracies, Australia has no Bill of Rights to protect human rights in one single document. Instead, some rights can be found in the Constitution, our common law and legislation which includes acts passed by the Commonwealth Parliament or State or Territory Parliaments.

Australia pride itself on its strong human rights record and its standing as a good global citizen. However deeper analysis and according to recent situation that how boat people are being treated shows that Australia has failed to fulfill with its international human rights obligations in a number of areas. This is making the things complicating and has tendency towards receptionist and relativist arguments as regard as these international obligations. Especially, much of the focus in Australia and the country’s

Australian law has reflected the status of women in Anglo-Celtic culture. Today there are women in Australia from widely diverse cultural backgrounds and the law has a role in ensuring the safety, freedom, security and equality of opportunity for them all. As the status of women varies from culture to culture and changes over time, the law has had to adapt and evolve in order to fulfill its role.

Upholding human rights is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable society. In 1966, Australia and a majority of the world’s nations signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the atrocities committed in World War II this seemed like a positive step for ensuring acknowledgement and respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. However, the means of enforcing human rights is not a straightforward process. In response to ratifying the ICCPR, Australia set up the Australian Human Rights Commission. However, after a number of failed attempts, it has not followed through with implementing a

The Human Rights Act covers all human rights and ensures that all individuals have rights on their side and can take legal action against any organisation that disrespects these. Meaning that if a care giver does not respect the needs of the resident they are caring for, their company can get sued due to their lack of care standards. The act states that everyone has the right to life, meaning that any life support mechanism cannot be withdrawn unless a person is beyond doubt clinically dead. It also says that every person has the right to protection from inhuman and degrading treatment, for example humiliation and inappropriate or rough care. It also prohibits discrimination, meaning that people must not be discriminated against due to their age/ethnicity/gender etc. meaning everyone must be treated equally with the same level of high standards of care no matter who they are.

Human Rights Act 1998 – Gives further legal status to the standards on Human Rights that was set out in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This highlighted the principle that all humans have the same rights and should be treated equally. This act also sets out the rights of all individuals and allows individuals to take action against authorities when their rights are affected.

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

Human rights can be summarized as the activities and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to enjoy and only by virtue of their humanity. These conditions are generally guaranteed in the constitution of the land. They are widely felt in the area as they are divided and not limited to political, social economic and cultural rights. Some of the main principles of human rights include the fact that they are inherent, inalienable and indivisible as well. In this relation, human rights can never be taken away from an individual whereby the enjoyment of one right should not infringe the enjoyment of other. They must all be respected and maintained.

Human rights are the right that any individual is entitled under their government, and it can be provided in divergent forms. Thus in Australia, there are no set of ‘Bill of Rights’, comparable to many other western countries that share similar legal values and standards. The American ‘Bill of Rights’ states that the government ensures the freedom of speech and religion, protection from torture and punishment, and the fair procedures of law . There has always been a great debate on whether Australian government should acquire a constitutional Bill of Rights. I believe that it is not necessary to obtain a Bill of Rights as it is not necessary for Australian legal system, and further, it can bring confusion, greater debate and litigations. There are other forms of human rights law introduced into Australian legal system which sets boundaries for the government to respect individual rights. Consequently, it proves the unnecessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia.

The main issue that should first be outlined is that it can be argued that the Human Rights Act causes an imbalance. The Act favours the judiciary over both the executive and the legislature as it gives the judiciary the power to impose their authority over the other two. Section 3 of the Act gives the judiciary the power to read and give effect to primary and secondary legislation in a way which will be most compatible with the Convention Rights. This puts the judiciary in a sufficiently decent position when interpreting legislation passed by the executive and the legislature due to the Act allowing them to declare incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore negating the provision in question. The case of R v A demonstrates the challenges that other legislation has faced due to the ability for the judiciary to declare incompatibility. This was due to section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 restricting the admissibility at trial of evidence relating to the sexual behaviour of those who made allegations of rape. The aim of Parliament was clearly to prevent making the victim uncomfortable by being asked questions of sexual history which could impact willingness to report crime and the prospects of a successful prosecution. However the judiciary position was that upholding the defendant’s Article 6 right to a