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.
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.
In this essay I will examine the development of Australian society and subsequent rights given to Australian citizens, thus addressing the guiding question as quoted at the top of the paper.
The attitudes of the white Australians also had a huge impact on change of rights and freedoms as it pressured the government into giving Aboriginals rights and freedoms. The 1967 was testament to this when a huge 90.77% of Australians agreed that Aboriginals had the right to be counted in the census. There has never been any real public objections to giving aboriginals rights, merely quiet harbored prejudices in the persons’ mind. On the other side of the case the Aboriginal rights in general have not improved with many Aboriginals being
This has come from the Australian community and international human rights monitors who have stated that “There are still areas in which the domestic legal system does not provide an effective remedy to persons whose rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] have been violated … [Australia] should take measures to give effect to all Covenant rights and freedoms.” There hasn’t only been a recent push for a Bill of Rights, Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason wrote in 1997 that “Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state”. Brian Galligan who is an academic expert on citizenship stated that “the old confidence in the effectiveness of parliamentary responsible government and the common law for protecting human rights has been undermined by more realistic accounts of the weakness of parliament and the increasingly residual domain of common law compared with the plethora of statutory laws.” The answer to whether Australia needs to adopt a Bill of Rights in order to protect Australian citizens is simple… yes and
The Bill of Rights became a very important document in the United States Constitution in order to ensure United States citizens equal protection of their rights and liberties. The main objective of the Bill of rights was to place limits on the national government creating an understanding and dividing the powers between the states and the national government. Not all the powers were granted to the national government however not all the powers were prohibited to the states. As stated by Ginsberg, Lowi, Weir & Tolbert (2015) the bill of rights consists of 10 amendments incorporated in the U.S constitution. It is important to note that each amendment contains a legal court case in which the supreme court as well as the government have ruled and have ignored or have protected the rights of the individuals involved.
The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: Does it Protect and Uphold Human Rights?
Created September 25,1978 and ratified December 15, 179, the Bill of Rights was imputed into society as a tool to establish law,order, and morality. James Madison, a political theorist, was known as the father of the Bill of Rights. One of the most important amendments in the Bill of Rights is the right to freedom of speech, expression and media. In the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment guarantees the citizens of America that they have the right to freely express themselves about anything, including political arguments and views. This amendment also guarantees the press/media the right to overtly publish their ideas on any topic in the newspaper. The purpose of this amendment is to assure America’s people that they shouldn’t worry about being censored or punished for the expression of their feelings because they are human just as everyone else.
Human rights are the rights of humans, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or religion. We should all have this in common as we are all part of humanity. However, Indigenous people did not always have these rights (Ag.gov.au, 2015). Aside from basic human rights, Indigenous people also have their own rights specific to their culture. Before 1967, Indigenous people had different rights in different states and the Australian federal government did not have any jurisdiction over Aboriginal affairs until Australia’s constitution was amended for this purpose in 1967 (Moadoph.gov.au, 2015). Between 1900 and the present time, there have been significant changes to the rights of Indigenous Australians. The effects of the European Settlement on the Indigenous people of Australia have been devastating. When white people began arriving in Australia, the Aboriginal people believed them to be ghosts of ancestor spirits. However, once they realised the settlers were invading their land, the Aborigines became, understandably, hostile (Slater & Parish, 1999, pp.8-11). In 1788, the total Indigenous population was believed to be between 750,000 and one million. By 1888, the Indigenous population was reduced to around 80,000 Australia wide (Korff, 2014). The three main reasons for this dramatic decline were the introduction of new diseases, violent conflicts with the colonisers, and settlers acquiring Indigenous land (Digital, 2015). In 1848, the Board of National Education stated that it
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 Canadian Bill of Rights was the first federal human rights law in Canada. Following this, the Charter of rights and freedoms are a more in depth. It guarantees many basic rights and freedoms. The Charter creates a greater public awareness of human rights issues. People can choose their own religion and where to live because of this Charter. Also, indorses multiculturalism. This document is a modern and indicates our rights more clearly than the bill. Without these rights, our citizens would not be equal and would not have rights and responsibilities. It makes is difficult for future governments to decrease or limit the rights and freedoms we have now.
All three forms of text contained in some way an idea towards an egalitarian Australia, whether it be an equal society where all can have their voice heard, an equal society where no one will have their land taken from them, or a society where all have an equal opportunity at life. In 2016, we as Australians see the effects of these texts on society, and have an indicator to see the progression: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From this, Australia can see it still has a long way before truly becoming “the land of the fair go”. It fails Article 1 “All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights…should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” when Adam Goodes is booed by the crowds at football matches (Grant, 2015). It fails Article 9 “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile” when the refugees are kept in detention centres, their only crime being scared of civil war. Article 26 part 1 “Everyone has the right to education” is failed when it is considered Indigenous children are more likely to end up in prison than to complete high school (Grant, 2015). This is also a major cause of the pay gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, as students with a tertiary education earn up to three times as much as students who did not complete high school (Evershed, 2013). In conclusion, the Australian identity
Good morning/evening ladies and gentleman. What are Human Rights? Technically speaking, they are rights which are believed to belong to every person. Whatever nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, religion or language is spoken, everyone has human rights. Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, which provides specific freedoms to citizens and limits the power of the government. Rather, rights may be found in the Constitution, common law and legislation where acts are passed by the Commonwealth Parliament or State or Territory Parliaments. At age 17, children in Queensland do not have the right to vote, legally consume alcohol or get a tattoo, they need parental consent to obtain a passport or to marry. Yet in the eyes of the Queensland criminal justice system, they are viewed as adults. 17 year olds in Queensland are viewed as “too young” to make “adult decisions”, however if they commit a crime, they can be sentenced to imprisonment as an adult. If 17 year olds in Queensland do not have the right to participate in adult
They were created to give each individual dignity, freedom and respect. Article 19 of the UDHR is the article behind the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and states that “you have the right to think what you want, to say what your like and nobody should forbid you from doing so. You should be able to share your ideas also with people from any other country.” This act allows individuals to communicate their ideals, principles and processes with each other and feel entitled to the ownership of them. By communicating these beliefs it helps us form new opinions in a way to seek out the truth. By the Australian government holding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to a high standard, citizens are able to have the right of freedom of speech and are protected legally under the
A Bill of Rights would educate Australians about human rights, in turn promoting a culture of tolerance, understanding and respect for human rights (State Library of NSW 2005, p.9). Kirby (1995, p. 281) asserts there is a distinct lack of awareness amongst school children about human rights; therefore a Bill of Rights will educate citizens about the fundamentals of the rights of an Australian, in turn contributing to the national identity. A Bill of Rights would encourage and foster “the growth of Australian culture of rights protection” (Williams 2001, p. 791). McGarrity (2009, p. 14) argues that human rights discourses have become the province of academics and politicians, so educating the public will allow the Australian community, with its diverse, multicultural