Armadale-WA web site Human Rights web page

This web page relates to Human Rights, one of the most important things (if not the most important thing) in life.

I will be working on this web page as time goes on.

I have copied and republished on this web site, the following documents.
1. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (August 1789) is copied and republished on this web site, at http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/DRMC.html .
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is copied and republished on this web site, at http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/UDHR.html .
3. The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights is copied and republished on this web site, at http://www.armadale-wa.net/politics/ICCPR.html .

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 Michael Kirby Speech 06 December 1997

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 .
Note: The speech by Michael Kirby, referenced in that document, had been moved from the cited position, by the High Court of Australia, so I have a copy of it as cited above, at Michael Kirby Speech 06 December 1997 .



This paragraph about increasing, widespread persecution and harassment in Australia,
added 26 October 2009

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.



This part is added 13 June 2013
- I should have added this, years ago

Regarding the widespread persecution of bikies in Australia, by governments and police forces and courts that have no interest in law enforcement and justice, but instead, get their jollies from gratuitous persecution, and this is directed at people who have the attitude "It is only bikies, so, who cares - it does not affect me"; if you are not willing to consider that all people are entitled to human rights, and to equal fairness in the law, remember this, in these times of continually increasing human rights violations by the governments and police forces and courts of Australia -

"
First They Came - Pastor Martin Niemoller

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
"

Beware for when it is your turn...



Added 03 October 2015
regarding buying ice cream in Australia, having become a chargeable extremist offence

The news reports have recently reported the absolute extremism of the human rights violations by Australian federal and state governments.

At http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/charges-dismissed-against-five-alleged-bikies-in-qld/6809312 , is reported that five people in Australia, have been arrested and prosecuted for the extremely serious offence of buying ice cream. Luckily, the magistrate appeared to have had an IQ greater than twenty, and apparently realised how absolutely stupid are the laws in Australia, relating to what people may do together, and apparently believes that buying icecream together, should not yet involve a prison sentence or the death penalty.

"The men were arrested while on holiday in Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast last year."

"
None of the men were in court for the hearing but outside court the solicitor for some of them, Bill Potts, said his clients spent three weeks in custody and taxpayers had paid about $500,000 for the case to be pursued.

"Their only sin, their only crime, was to buy an ice-cream in a public place - the great controversy here was whether it was going to be choc top or vanilla," he said.
"

This is Australia, a country where human rights violations by federal and state governments, are rife, and, commonplace.

Do not send your children to buy ice cream. You may never see them again, if the police find out they have been, or, are intending to be, buying ice cream.

And, whatever you do, if you, or anyone you know, likes hokey-pokey ice cream, make sure you do not let the gestapo find out, or you may all be disappeared.

"This is Homeland Security. We have the place surrounded. You have been accused of having someone in there, who is accused of liking or buying or eating hokey-pokey ice cream, or a combination of some or all of these offences. Throw down the ice cream, and come out with your hands up, and we will not shoot you until after you have been convicted. This is your only warning. We will start shooting, if you are not all outside, with your hands up, and, without your ice creams. You have five seconds. After five seconds have passed, we will firebomb the premises, to remove all traces of the hokey-pokey icecream, and, because I am a high ranking government official, I have my Like Watching Things Burn Badge. Remember, you have five seconds before we burn the place to the ground. Five ... Four ... Three ..."

Where else but Australia - a country that bans human rights, and where the state and federal governments practice as many human rights violations, as possible, as frequently as possible, for their perverted pleasure.





Also added 26 October 2009
this paragraph about embedded gender-based discrimination

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.



Added 21 April 2010
this item is about the rejection of human rights in Australia, by the Australian federal government and the Liberal-National Party.

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.



Also added 21 April 2010, this item is about a systemic, statutory, discrimination that is imposed by the racist Australian federal Constitution.

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.



Added 13 March 2016 -
Various Australian political parties and institutions,
and their contempt for human rights

Section 18 of the Australian federal RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975, includes, as published at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html as viewed on 13 March 2016;

"
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

             (2)  For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

                     (a)  causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

                     (b)  is done in a public place; or

                     (c)  is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

             (3)  In this section:

"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
"

In the published policies of the Pirate Party of Australia, as published at https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policies/Civil_Liberties as viewed on 13 March 2016, is

"
Remove existing laws which impose censorship or restrict privacy

Repeal the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2014 [16].
Repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act[17], ensuring that pre-existing common law protections are sufficient to manage all cases of intimidation and harassment.
"

so the Pirate Party of Australia would allow and encourage racial vilification and religious vilification and sexual vilification, whether the sexual vilification be on the basis of gender, or sexual preference, the Pirate Party of Australia, would allow and encourage it.

Yet, the Pirate Party of Australia, in contradicting itself, at https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Policies/Civil_Liberties

also published, as viewed on 13 March 2016, that it would
"Legislate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into law."
which the Pirate Party of Australia, would either have already contravened, or, would set about contravening, in its intent to repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. See the text below, for how the Pirate Party would be contravening the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights.

At http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-24/brandis-defends-right-to-be-a-bigot/5341552 as viewed on 13 March 2016, is

"
George Brandis defends 'right to be a bigot' amid Government plan to amend Racial Discrimination Act
By political correspondent Emma Griffiths
Updated March 24, 2014 19:23:39

Attorney-General George Brandis has defended the Government's plan to amend a key part of the nation's racial discrimination laws, saying people have "a right to be bigots".

The Abbott Government has promised to amend the Racial Discrimination Act by repealing section 18C, which makes it unlawful for someone to publicly "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or a group of people.
"

and

"
The Opposition is against any changes to Section 18C and says Senator Brandis has given a "green light to bigots".

"Senator Brandis has clearly revealed today he intends to give a green light to racist hate speech in Australia," his Labor counterpart Mark Dreyfus said in a statement.

But Senator Brandis said the law as it stands amounted to "political censorship".

"People like Mr Bolt should be free to express any opinion on a social or a cultural or a political question that they wish to express - just as Mr Bolt would respect your right to express your opinions on social or political or cultural issues," he told Senator Peris.

Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says it is a dangerous position to take.

"What the Attorney-General said today gives the green light to racist hate speech in Australia," he said.

"And the Prime Minister in Question Time confirmed that the protections which have been in Australian law for almost 20 years are going to be repealed.
"

and

"
Abbott says democracy depends on free speech

Barely 20 minutes after his statements in the Senate, Labor's deputy leader Tanya Plibersek asked the Prime Minister if he agreed with the Attorney-General that people had a "right to be bigots".

Tony Abbott did not repeat the phrase but said Australia's democracy and freedom depended on free speech.
"

(It IS interesting to note, that the Labor government of Julia Gillard, along with George Brandis, who also, at that time, decided that the Australian peopleare NOT entitled to human rights)

But, free speech" does not exist in Australia, as shown by the imprisonment of Albert Langer, who tried to tel Australian voters how they could vote for only the candidates for whom they wanted to vote; how to cast a valid vote, without being forced to vote for candidates that they did not want elected.

And, at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-25/racial-discrimination-act-changes-george-brandis/5343464 as viewed on 13 March 2016, is

"
The Institute of Public Affairs has described the Government's move as a "victory for freedom of speech".

"While a full repeal of 18C would have been preferable, the Government's proposal goes 95 per cent of the way towards ensuring what happened to Andrew Bolt won't happen again," the IPA's Simon Breheny said.
"

In the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, as published at http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx and viewed on 13 Match 2016, is

"
Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
"

and, in Article 20 of the Covenant, is

"
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
"

and, in the Preamble for that Covenant, is

"
The States Parties to the present Covenant,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Agree upon the following articles:
"

and, in the Unversal Declaration Of Human Rights, as published at http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ and viewed on 13 March 2016, is, in the Preamble;

"
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. 
"

and, in the Articles of that Declaration, is

"
Article 1.

All human beings are 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 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, 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, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
"

and

"
Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
"
"recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" means that people should not offend or denigrate other people on the basis of some means of discrimination, and, should, instead, respect other people, however different the other people may be, so long as the other people, do not directly cause them harm.

And, "Recognizing that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,", means that people should treat other people with dignity and respect.

And, "Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,", shows that we each have a duty, to treat other people with dignity and respect, and to not gratuitously offend or otherwise denigrate them.

And, as is stated in the Preamble to the Universal Declation of Human Rights; "Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person"; once again, people should be treating other people with dignity and respect, and not gratuitously offending or otherwise denigrating them.

And, this is reinforced by Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "All human beings are 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.", which means, treating other p[eople with dignity and respect, and, not gratuitously offending or otherwise denigrating them.

And, in Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."; so, the statute law should provide protection as stated in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, except that

section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, should be expanded, to meet Australia's obligations, as mentioned in
Article 2 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights; "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
and Article 20(2) of the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights; "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
- therefore, the part of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act;

"
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
"

should be expanded, to include the criteria of
"race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
.

And, for those who claim that "freedom of speech" entitles them to say or publish whatever they want, in the Declaration Of The Rights Of Man And The Citizen, Article 4 states
"Liberty consists in the power to do anything that does not injure others"
which means that any "freedom of speech" should NOT include any right to offend or insult or otherwise denigrate, other people.

Now, from all of this, the LNP of Australia, through its federal parliamentary political party in government, and, the sustained support for its offensive George Brandis, who is clearly seeking to incite civil war, and, the apparent branch of that poltical party; the "Institute of Public Affairs", are shown to be right wing extremists, determined to incite public conflict and probably civil war, through their campaign of vilification.

But, it is disappointing that, on the one hand, the Pirate Party of Australia, as stated above, claims to be supportive of human rights, but, would set about violating human rights, by allowing and encouraging vilification, and the deliberate inciting of public conflict, making it, also, a right wing, extremist organisation, intent on inciting civil war.





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 13 March 2016.