I will be working on this web page as time goes on.
Every country (even Australia, which is often left behind in most things) needs binding human rights legislation. Many people in Australia, mistakenly believe that international human rights treaties, like the UN International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, are binding in Australia, and that we have the human rights that are embodied in those documents.
Some people also, mistakenly, believe that we are entitled to the rights of the USA Bill Of Rights, which comes from the USA Amendments to the Constitution, such as the right to bear arms. They are wrong.
See http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/kirbyj/kirbyj_inthrts.htm
For a fairly good declaration of human rights, and, what I think is the earliest real declaration of human rights, see the web page at http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/declaration.html .
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen
and
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen .
My submission that I made in May 2009, to the Australian Human Rights Consultation Committee (see http://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/ ) is at http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/HumanRightsConsulationCommitteeSubmission_200905.pdf .
In Australia, states are increasingly imposing laws banning peaceful
association of particular groups of people, and, the police forces are
increasingly harassing and persecuting those groups of people, with
great glee, and abandoning law enforcement.
This directly contravenes Article 21 of the United Nations International Covenant On
Civil And Political Rights, "ratified by Australia", which states "The right of peaceful assembly
shall be recognized."
It also contravenes Article 22 of that Covenant, which states
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others".
That Australia is increasingly violating Human Rights to which it has dishonestly
agreed, is a glaring indication of the need for a legally binding declaration of
civil rights, to which the federal constitution, and, state and territory constitutions,
should be subject, as the only means of guaranteeing Human Rights in Australia.
Now, for people with an open mind, who can look at life around them objectively, here is a really good example, of systemic sexual discrimination. I was watching a television news broadcast, and the woman that was the newsreader, was wearing a shirt that was open to about eight to ten inches (20-25cm) below the top of her breastbone, or sternum. If the newsreader had been a man, the man would likely be required to be wearing a shirt buttoned up to tight against the throat, and, a tie, tied tightly around the throat, like a garotte. For a man to be dressed formally, or, for work as a professional, the man is required to be wearing a shirt buttoned tight against the throat, and, a tie, tied tight against the throat. But, for a woman to be dressed to what society regards as the equivalent level of dress, the woman can wear clothes with an open front, and, especially, the woman is not required to wear clothes that are tight against the throat. The woman does not even have to wear a collar. For further examples of the discrimination, the next time that you see local government, state and territory parliament, and, federal parliament, sittings, look at the clothes that the members are wearing. If you are in Armadale, go to a city council meeting. Look at what the councillors are wearing. Do all of the males, wear collars and ties? Do all of the females wear collars and ties? Would the male members, be allowed to be present, and performing their roles, if they wore clothes as open around the throat and chest, as the female members? If not, why not? Similarly, at events where people "dress up" - weddings, funerals, formal dinners, etc., look at who is required to wear collars and ties, and, ask yourself, why? The answer is discrimination based on gender. Apart from the issues of the phallic nature of a tie, women do not have to dress to strangle themselves. This is gender-based discrimination, that people appear to ignore, because it is so entrenched in society. But, it is, nevertheless, systemic gender-based discrimination, and, it shows that gender-based discrimination prevails, and is part of society.
I have today read the news story published at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/21/2879078.htm?section=justin , which states:
"
The Federal Government says it will not be introducing a human rights act in Australia, but will release a new framework.
An act was recommended by the national human rights consultation panel headed by Father Frank Brennan.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland says all new bills introduced to Parliament will have to be compatible with Australia's international human rights obligations.
But he says the Government believes a human rights framework, rather than legislation, is more appropriate.
"The Government believes that the enhancement of human rights should be done in a way that as far as possible unites rather than divides our community, and the framework is designed to achieve that outcome," he said.
"Nevertheless, as you'll see, the framework does reflect the key recommendations of the human rights consultation committee and we believe [it] will make a real difference."
Shadow attorney-general George Brandis says the Rudd Government has wasted $2 million promoting a concept which never had community support.
Senator Brandis says the Opposition has always opposed the bill of rights as a dangerous and foolish idea.
"Robert McClelland nailed his flag well and truly to the charter of rights mast and he's been humiliated by his own cabinet," he said.
"The Opposition is well pleased that this idea will not go ahead, but an enormous amount of time, energy and public money was wasted in pursuing it."
The Australian Human Rights Commission says it is disappointed by the Government's decision.
Commission president Catherine Branson says the new measures are welcome but a human rights act is still needed.
"We must be concerned about abuse against children, abuse of the elderly in their frail and vulnerable years," she said.
"We know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not enjoy equal health and equal education outcomes with others.
"We know there are real problems in people with a disability participating in our community and there are others."
"
which shows that both the federal government and the Liberal-National Party, in preventing binding human rights legislation from being enacted in Australia, which legislation would somewhat guarantee human rights in Australia, insist on Australia continuing as a country guaranteed to violate what are regarded as human rights outside Australia.
And, one of the many reasons that Australia needs for all legislation within Australia, including the Australian federal constitution, to be subject to human rights legislation, is that I am one of the (I believe) millions of Australians, who are discriminated against, by the racist Australian Constitution; according to the racist Australian Constitution, whilst Australian citizens of dual citizenship, are compelled to vote in federal elections of the federal parliament, and, in federal referenda, Australian citizens of dual citizenship, are forbidden from being elected to the federal parliament (I wonder whether that constitutes an electoral fraud - being compelled to vote for candidates for positions, for which the voter is ineligible to nominate) . Without having the definite statistics of how many Australian citizens hold dual citizenship, I believe that it is likely in the millions, which would mean that millions of Australian citizens are subject to systemic, statutory, racial discrimination.
See http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/AustConstSec44.html . for details of the issue, and a simple and fair solution.
The significance is not somuch that I am a victim of this discrimination/(electoral fraud ?), or, that the particular discrimination/(electoral fraud ?) prevents me from standing as a candidate in elections for the federal parliament (many would probably think that stopping me from nominating as a candidate in elections for the federal parliament, is "worth whatever it takes" :) ), but, rather, that it is a discrimination/(electoral fraud ?), of which, possibly millions of Australian citizens are victims.
Thus, as stated above, on this web page, and, in the submission that I made to the National Human Rights Consultative Committee, the submission referenced above on this web page, Australia needs not only legislation guaranteeing human rights, but also, that all Australian legislation, including, especially, the Australian Constitution, needs to be made subject to a Declaration of Human Rights, to guarantee human rights in Australia.
This web page is authorised and written by Bret Busby, 2 Pelham Street, Armadale.
I can be contacted by email by clicking on the link at Bret
For issues relating to this web site, send an email to the webmaster by clicking on the link at webmaster
This web page was last updated on 21 April 2010.