The history of human rights is majority disaster and only little accomplishment. The world has suffered then prevailed, only to see more misery. Each time, this suffering is due to the lack of respect for human rights and a lack of respect for laws that prevent this violation of human rights. The beginning of a human rights policy can be narrowed down to the creation of the Magna Carta (1215). Since this first draft of human rights, there have been hundreds of constitutions and bills of rights in several parts of the world to ensure these human rights are secure and followed. However, Australia has still not guaranteed the rights of their citizens, through the implementation of a Bill of Rights. Being the only western democracy without any …show more content…
There is also a document known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which, Australia is a signatory. The monumental document for human rights, was created by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. It is the first universal document of human rights and due to the creation of this, many countries created their own version, similar to that of the universal declaration. This one universal document of 30 basic human rights everybody was entitled to, created an immense wave of change for human rights for every country. Australia has still not provided its people with the guarantee of their basic human rights, not to mention the rejection of asylum seekers, especially in terms of the current asylum seeker crisis, which relates to Article 14 “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from …show more content…
The statement, ‘Turn back the boats’ was a term used by politicians in order to gain momentum for their campaigns and popularity, especially by Tony Abbott in 2012. Many Australian citizens seem to agree with this although these people are also the ones who think it’s illegal to arrive in Australia by boat if they are seeking asylum. This term is very offensive and Australia as a whole as copped a lot of criticism for the governments approach to the current global crisis. (insert a clip of Abbott) Australia has let these asylum seekers down as well as the citizens of Australia. Who can be proud to call themselves Australian when this is how we treat those in
The 2014 Walkley Award winning documentary, "Cronulla Riots: the day that shocked the nation" reveals to us a whole new side of Aussie culture. No more she’ll be right, no more fair go and sadly no more fair dinkum. The doco proved to all of us (or is it just me?) that the Australian identity isn’t really what we believe it to be. After viewing this documentary
Watching the documentary “Go Back To Where You Came From” regarding the issues of Asylum Seekers and Refugees, I am disgusted about the way that Australia has been treating Asylum Seekers and Refugees. That is why I am writing you this letter to promote and voice my view on the treatment to refugees, the Stop the Boats Policy and ways to minimise this Issue.
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
The Bill of Rights was first originated from England, where it asserts for constitutional protection for individuals, and lists different types of prohibitions on government power (Bill of rights institute, 2016). The action of how Australia became a Federation, it involved complicated constitutional conventions, and how the constitutional founders addressed the complications of enacting a Bill of Rights, they decided not to enact it. McClelland (2002, pg. 138) describes how there were proposals that were rejected to incorporate fundamental rights in Australia’s constitution. Australians basic right were protected by common law, however instead, it was a mixture of
One of Australia’s biggest moral wrongdoings that has been continued to be overlooked is the providing of safety for refugees. Under the article 14, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. It is not in anyway, shape or form illegal to seek asylum from maltreatment. Australia is obliged under international law to: offer protection, give support, ensure that any individual is not sent back unwillingly to the country of their origin. A report made by
Phillips, J. (2011), ‘Asylum seekers and refugees: What are the facts?’, Background note, Parliamentry library, Canberra.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
Although, asylum seekers and refugees are given a few options if they feel as though their rights are being breached, like they can apply to tribunals and courts to view their visa related decisions, they can also make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission about their human rights being breached in immigration detention centres, yet they do not have control over who enters the country, the government is not obliged to comply with the recommendations that are made. Although the government has made few attempts to comply with the human rights obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees by introducing new policies and prioritising the safety of the children in these detention camps, there are currently still many breaches towards their rights that the government continues to adapt, therefore they are still constituting a breach of international law.
The conditions of Australia’s immigration detention policies have also been cause for concern for probable contraventions of Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR. Whilst in Sweden, asylum seekers are afforded free housing whilst their applications are being processed, Australia’s methods are much more callous. Under the Pacific Solution, maritime asylum seekers are sent to impoverished tropical islands with no monitoring by human rights organisations allowed (Hyndman and Mountz, 2008). The UNHCR criticised Australia’s offshore processing centres stating that “significant overcrowding, cramped living quarters, unhygienic conditions, little privacy and harsh tropical climate contribute to the poor conditions of… Nauru and Papua New Guinea” (Morales
While people have the right to live in a safe community the key right governed by the legislation surrounding bail laws, is the right to the presumption of innocence. The right to be “presumed innocent until proved guilty” is articulated in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted by the General Assembly in 1948, that of which Australia was a part of (United Nations, 2018). The Rule of Law is a principle of governance that ensures that no one is above the law therefore enforcing consistency, fairness and equality. The presumption of innocence plays an important role in preserving someone’s innocence and not punishing them for a crime that is yet to be proven. This fundamental right also acts as a judicial review and regulates powers of the Government, limiting their ability to hold people on remand
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
For years we have witnessed the Indigenous population’s political struggle for recognition of rights to Australian land. At times the effort appears to be endless and achieving recognition almost seems impossible. Native Title and Land claims have become a step closer in achieving this recognition; however, for land rights to exist in an absolute form, they cannot exist as a mere Act of Parliament but must form a fundamental part of the Australian Constitution. This seemingly gigantic task is part of the incessant political struggle that the Indigenous population will continue to face. The United Nation’s is an integral part of the political struggle between the Australian government and the Indigenous people and have on many occasions fought to raise the issue of human rights violation within the Australian constitution.
113-117 Human Rights: Politics and Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
The Human Rights Commission (2014) state that ‘ Australia was a founding member of the UN and played a prominent role in the negotiation of the UN Charter in 1945. Australia was also one of eight nations involved in drafting the Universal Declaration.’ An advantage of introducing a Bill of Rights would be that all the basic rights and fundamental freedoms stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be incorporated into Australia’s legal system. A disadvantage would be that the Bill of Rights would interfere with Australia’s international obligations, for example the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The State Library of New South Wales (2011) states that ‘Australia is currently party to seven of the nine core international human rights.’ If a Bill of Rights was introduced into the Australian legal system, it would mean that all the basic rights and fundamental freedoms stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be protected by the Australian legal system. Although this would also make it harder for Australia to continue to try and incorporate all nine core international human rights instruments in their legal system. A recommendation would be to try and incorporate all nine core international human rights instruments before considering the idea of a Bill of Rights.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.