Research Paper On Human Rights In Australia

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.

The processing of these crimes help to embed the key of legal knowledge in the mind of a child hoping to shape their future actions. NSW age of criminal responsibility is defined by statute as 10 years of age, which is recognised in Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). Meaning that a child under 10 years of age cannot be charged for a crime. The basis of this is the recognition of the immaturity and exposure of children and their inability to form the requisite criminal intent known as mens

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.

When considering why criminal law is important in achieving justice for Indigenous Australians it is pertinent to recognise that Indigenous people are grossly over-represented in the criminal justice system. Recent data suggests that Indigenous Australians aged 10 and over are 7.5 times

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: Does it Protect and Uphold Human Rights?

However, in 1990 The Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified in Australia, meaning that the Australian Government has committed to make sure every child has the rights under all 54 articles. Article 37 and 40 specifically relates to juvenile crime; article 37(b) outlines that “arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.” Article 37(c) states that “every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity… shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child’s best interest.” Furthermore, Article 40 states that “the establishment of a minimum age below which child shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law.” Internationally, the acceptable minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12 and in all Australian states and territories it is 10. The current law in Australia has been criticised by the United Nations and has not kept up with these international standards. Specifically, the law in Queensland shows inconsistency; in the Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld), a child is an individual under 18 years old, whereas in the Youth Justice Act 1992 (Qld) the definition of a child is a person under the age of 17 allowing for children who turn 18 with at least six months of their

Despite the international prominence of human rights laws, Australia remains the only Western democracy without either a constitutionally entrenched or legislative bill of rights. Human rights can be defined as inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms that all individuals are inherently entitled to. Although human rights are protected to an extent through domestic legislation, the common law, the doctrine of the separation of powers, the rule of law, the Australian

In relation to the Charter, my advice is that Josh’s conduct is not protected and the cancellation of his parole by the Adult Parole Board was not in breach of the Charter. Moreover, the conduct of Dianne and Cary is initially protected by the Charter however due to the limitations placed upon human rights it can be argued that Dianne and Cary’s conduct are indeed in breach. Additionally Victoria police in partner with AX6 are in breach of numerous rights set out in the Charter, which will be discussed in further detail.

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 Constitution of India is imbued with the spirit of promoting and protecting the human rights of its constituents. But, merely incorporating a comprehensive bill of rights will not deliver the goods. And, although Article 32 of the Constitution assures an individual the right to move the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of his/her rights, other constraints (like court fees, large back log of pending cases, and the intricacies of legal procedures leading to inordinate delay in justice) make the legal option difficult and almost unapproachable for the ordinary person. The implementation of laws that guarantee constitutional rights can be overseen by special administrative or institutional measures. The Indian Government has set up many special institutions under different acts of parliament and the primary task of these institutions is to give effect to various constitutional rights, particularly the rights of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. One such important institution is the National Human Rights Commission. In order to understand the powers and functioning of this commission it is necessary to know the various Indian Laws relating to Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act of 1998, also abbreviated to HRA is a national law passed in the United Kingdom and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its purpose is to incorporate the rights within the European Convention on Human Rights into UK national law. This law allows the citizens of the United Kingdom to defend their rights in UK courts and states that public organisations such as the Government, Police and other public authorities must respect the people’s rights by treating them fairly and equally with dignity. Firstly, this essay will be discussing what the Human Rights Act (1998) is and its effects. Secondly, this essay will be pointing out the Articles and explaining the Act. Thirdly, this essay will be talking about the history and why this act came into place. Finally, this essay will argue the necessity of the Human Rights Act (1998).

All people are entitled to various basic rights which should not be desecrated under any situation. Some of these rights include political rights, civil liberties and most importantly the right to physical safety and life. Human rights bodies articulate for tolerance, justice, human dignity and mutual respect for all people. Human rights are protected by ensuring that all people receive humane and decent treatment. Denying people their basic rights are violating them and it’s a terrible offense which can face a strict legal response. Everything that violates people’s rights or prevents them from enjoying ought to be eliminated with immediate effect.. Many people from all over the world cannot access some services due to poverty.

From the past, education has always been seen as a crucial aspect of our lives. In 1968, Durkheim stated that ‘society can survive only if there exists among its members a sufficient degree of homogeneity; education perpetuates and reinforces this homogeneity by fixing in the child, from the beginning, the essential similarities that collective life demands.’ Education has become even more indispensable as more instruments start to recognise the right to education. For instance, Article 2 of the First Protocol (A2P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 28(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This essay will assess the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) in protecting the right to education in England. It is noted that the HRA 1998 provide a relatively limited protection as compared to the rest of the instruments. But looking in light of the proposed reform on HRA 1998, the current protection provided by the HRA 1998 has undeniably secured certain protections toward the children’s educational rights. Firstly, this essay looks into the scope of protections that are provided by the HRA 1998. Secondly, the effectiveness of A2P1. Thirdly, the influence of other conventions with regards to the right to education. Lastly, the essay will conclude by looking at the future reform of the HRA 1998.