Importance Of Human Rights In Nauru

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.

Mandatory detention is the practice of compulsorily detaining or imprisoning people seeking political asylum. Whilst Australia is not the only country to detain unauthorized arrivals in certain circumstances, it is the only country where there is mandatory immigration detention for all unlawful non-citizens. This imposition of mandatory detention for asylum seekers arriving in Australia without visas is a violation of basic human rights principles. As a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and countless treaties from the UN, our nation is in compliance with these principles, and whilst Australia continues to impose mandatory detention on Asylum Seekers we are violating the terms of these treaties.

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.

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.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, categories all human beings as free. Article one identify all human beings as born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article two states, Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,

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

Political unrest and local war happens around the world all the time. Many people live in a dangerous situation and suffered from violence. Hence, large amount of asylum seeker undertakes a huge perilous, try to cross the ocean and arrive Australia. To deal with this issue, Australian government enacted mandatory detention policy and offshore processing policy, these policies become highly contentious in the community with many arguments and criticisms. This report will focus on the nature and purpose of these immigration policies and the impact towards the asylum seeker as well as the criticism form international. To propose some advice about how the future policies should be framed.

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

“Australia is one of the 146 signatory countries to the United Nations 1951 Convention and or/ 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees”. (Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, 2009)

This report is directly concerned with the Australian Government’s policies under ‘Operation Sovereign Borders,’ its ‘Regional Resettlement Arrangement’ with Papua New Guinea (PNG), and the ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ with the Republic of Nauru, which remove, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) irregular maritime arrivals to countries where their fundamental reason for seeking asylum – persecution on grounds relating to their sexual orientation and/or gender identity – is sufficient cause for further persecution, and even criminal sanction, in the recipient country. This report reveals that by transferring LGBTI asylum seekers to countries which intend to persecute them on the same grounds for which they originally sought asylum, Australia is breaching its international human rights obligations by directly undermining the principle of non-refoulement .

Human rights have been a perpetual concern for the contemporary global society in terms of its meaning, and interpretation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) define human rights as “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” . Governments have different forms to protect these human rights; United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand following many other countries obtain a form of Bill of Rights or charter of rights. Australia does not have said document. However, there are other forms of laws which protect human rights in Australia.

International law under the 1951 Refugee Convention, permits the right to seek asylum and allocates a responsibility to provide protection for those who lie under the definition of refugee. Since then policies have been modified and used to suit the interests of the government. In particular, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Act 1999. Authorised the removal of undocumented ships in Australian territory and proclaimed that anyone aboard the ship can be forcibly returned and denied application of asylum. Other legislation, such as the Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1999 makes it illegal for a person to carry people who are not citizens without valid documentation. These policies allow the government to portray itself as strong on border protection and terrorism. This plays well to its core constituencies but is rightly lambasted by human rights organisations and civil liberty groups. Refugees are undocumented people fleeing from their country of origin, so there isn’t a variety of travel options to escape to safety. The policy disclaiming that ‘everyone who lands by boat doesn’t get to stay’ is ignorant to the concept of why people are forced to leave. It’s not a choice to be removed from your country, it's a matter of survival and safety. The core principle of the Refugee convention is that people are not forced to return to a country where they face the threat of persecution or danger.

The Office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (OHCHR) defines Human Rights as, “rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.”

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic