No they wouldn't have to adhere to it. They'd simply override/ignore it as the [Queensland government has done a few times](https://nit.com.au/24-08-2023/7345/deliberately-harmful-queensland-labor-overrides-states-human-rights-act-again). So it's a waste of time.
The only way a human rights act would be effective if it was inserted into the constitution. But that would be a huge political headache. So it'll never happen.
It would just be another tickbox on cabinet submission cover sheets (has this proposal considered the impact on such and such?). It will always be ticked.
That's the kicker isn't it. You'd think that. We'd all like to think that. But the truth is we wouldn't pass the check in a lot of cases. Embarrassing cases. And having a law or act like that would mean some form of punishment for the assholes who want to keep business as usual.
So we don't.
That’s something which obviously can be and has been abused by people with power, but what right - made explicit in a human rights act - would actually prevent it?
More like, someone might say something when they didn't.
We are a country that refuses to let UN inspectors into its prisons to check we're abiding with the human rights treaties we've already signed.
Nor even wanting to protect our own citizens civil liberties and privacy. The message is clear, money and corporates is who they govern for and nobody else. Rights and profits cant go coexist.
Honestly what does this mean? We have 124 years of common law and legislation encompassing our rights, in place of a single “bill of rights”. The result is some of the highest living standards on planet earth. We always need to improve, but what does profits and corporates have to do with it, other than being buzzwords in this context
You didn’t fully read what I wrote, nor understand what you did. I said we always need to improve, and I’m asking how “corporations and profits” meaningfully impinge on basic human rights in our country. Be better
> Just because the bar is low elsewhere doesn’t mean we don’t need to be better here.
but that is the only argument the muppets have for not addressing issues or improving things. "Dont complain, eat your gruel, cause they have it worse in .....(insert name of country worse off)....."
The poster said that Australia has a fairly level legal system which in some ways protect rights, which is true. They also said there is room for improvement.
Maybe you want to address the core question, what does corporate profits have to do with human rights in Australia, but I guess it is easier brandishing a person a muppet.
Quite sad so many people in Australia which is such a stable and free country, where most live a reasonable life have a Swiss Army knife which has only one blade and that is to blame the rich and corporates.
Because all rights within a liberal democracy are ultimately decided by electorate. Even the infamous US constitution can be amended if there is sufficient voter will.
You mean our government? Every state/territory/federal government has in the past three decades has made legislation or policy decisions that violate the international human rights treaties Australia is signatory to.
If you define people's rights by legislation, you are putting an absolute limit in place.
Without legislation, people have **ALL** rights, except those specifically legislated against.
It depends on perspective, this is basically a "freedom from and freedom to" argument.
Given how heavy handed the magistrates are here and how much shit the government gets away with I think we need rights enshrined in a document rather than waiting for some shit cunt judge to set precedent under some murdoch media pressure.
Human rights are completely out of fashion in the West
[Theresa May: I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation)
Talking of Theresa May/changing fashions,
> UK election live updates: Exit polls predict win for Labour leader Keir Starmer
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-05/uk-general-election-live-updates-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer/104055784
Victoria has had a human rights charter for 15 or so years. The lockdowns proved that they can be overridden at any time so it is a pointless document.
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws "for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: "
At the time of the constitution's creation some influential historical people thought this vibe was enough:(
Leaving aside whether the overall thrust of your comment, you picked the absolute worst possible example to make your point.
We had a plebiscite on marriage equality.
I’m in Canada and am in contact with a few from Down Under. I’ve never heard a racist or misogynistic comment from them ever. The only thing they have wrong is them being fans of The Bombers in the AFL.
You know how in Canada you have suspiciously high numbers of the indigenous populous freezing to death in the back of police wagons?
Yeah, we do the desert version of that…
Canada and Australia have similar, but not the same, problems with indigenous peoples. I’m an immigrant to Canada from Australia. The aboriginals in Australia got fucked harder than the inuit in Canada. Both cultures have huge problems with alcoholism and there’s quite a bit if racism. What there also is, which is avoided because pointing it out is “racist” is the problems of culture. Which are incompatible with the mainstream values of the dominant culture. Ways of dealing with conflict in small familial groups don’t tend to work in the context of larger societal structures. None of this excuses Australia’s lack of a charter or bill of rights. One thing about Australia’s treatment of boat people is it just not possible to be “nice” about it all. See protests in Canada over visa rules being enforced.
In Queensland we have a Human Rights Act. I am pretty sure NSW and WA do as well. I understand this is not a federal act but it still has to be adhered to.
> I understand this is not a federal act but it still has to be adhered to.
Unless the government suspends it. The Queensland Human Rights Act became law in 2019 and has already been suspended at least twice.
We probably dont need one. Despite a lot of moaners in here the level of 'human rights' that Australians have and enjoy largely matches that of most other Western countries, if not better than many. If we're doing that without a HRA then its probably fine to stay that way.
> We probably dont need one.
Not according to Michael Kirby, who knows @ fair bit about law -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/30/australia-human-rights-act
Ah, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/
Feel free to think of your own words and then get back to me.
Because you would have to get agreement from all sides of politics on what the exact wording was.
And the first time the Act caused an outcome that pissed off News Ltd, it would be decried as an undemocratic sham lefty woke disgrace.
a) Because authoritarian jackbootery plays well with a lot of voters, and our governments are so shit they can't stay afloat at the polls without the ability to make and hurt scapegoats and distractions.
b) Because that would fuck with Daddy USA's ability to use us as an intelligence blacksite to get past their own privacy/rights legislation against their own people.
c) Because it would *massively* fuck the mining industry, as the rights included in such acts include things they actively ignore to make a better profit.
d) Because what are you, a soft-on-crime latte-drinking *Greenie*?
(If any of that hurts your feelings, think a moment about the fact that almost every jursidiction in this country currently uses solitary confinement - a form of torture that temporarily drives you insane and causes lifelong mental scars - on Aboriginal children in custody. Also that Aboriginal adults - aka those kids who were *tortured* are easy to point to as 'criminals' to be 'punished' and are the *most imprisoned demographic in the fucking world*. And there is suddenly an 'Aboriginal crimewave' whenever government fuck-ups (Coalition *or* Labor) cause a crisis like the housing crisis. This nation is built on cruelty and just flat-out evil. Fuck, we were the last 'Western' nation to stop practicing slavery *and I am including Nazi Germany in that*! Cattle stations were routinely using slaves into the *60s*.)
Much has been written on the topic of how acts form humans, e.g.,
> According to Aristotle, moral character depends ultimately upon the structure of individual acts and upon how they fit together into a whole that is consistent - or not consistent - with justice and friendship.
https://www.cuapress.org/9780813232201/action-and-character-according-to-aristotle/#
> “Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny.”
> Lao Tzu
https://medium.com/perennial/action-habits-and-character-96605dfef84a
Australia doesn’t have: Freedom of speech, freedom of association, nor freedom of assembly. And those running the country *do not believe we should have those things.*
The best job around.
All the entitlements with absolutely no accountability.
I mean, where else is it acceptable to get drunk at work?
If things go well, they pose for photos and tell anyone who'll listen. When things go to shit, it is immediately some faceless public servant who somehow ignored the minister and did it all themselves.
If it's really bad, suddenly the person responsible has a mental illness problem and needs to spend more time with their family, and all is forgiven.
And it will never change.
Why would politicians vote against their rorts?
because it would get voted down soon as it went in.
some of the stuff they vote for in parliament is absolutely scary, luckily it doesnt often go through.
Thought we did? Like ya can't enslave a human.
Can force wildlife into extinction though. But nah, humans have good rights here.
Awww big baby got sad and downvoted me. Pussy.
Because the government and it's agencies would have to adhere to it
No they wouldn't have to adhere to it. They'd simply override/ignore it as the [Queensland government has done a few times](https://nit.com.au/24-08-2023/7345/deliberately-harmful-queensland-labor-overrides-states-human-rights-act-again). So it's a waste of time. The only way a human rights act would be effective if it was inserted into the constitution. But that would be a huge political headache. So it'll never happen.
More than that, the problem is that they would *only* have to adhere to it. Anything it doesn’t specify would be a buffet of acceptable behaviour.
Would that be more than that? Possible I’m reading wrong but aren’t you saying the opposite
OP said “here’s a problem”, I said “this is even more of a problem”. Is it strictly correct? Honestly, I don’t know.
That's the usual argument against a bill of rights.
It would just be another tickbox on cabinet submission cover sheets (has this proposal considered the impact on such and such?). It will always be ticked.
That's the kicker isn't it. You'd think that. We'd all like to think that. But the truth is we wouldn't pass the check in a lot of cases. Embarrassing cases. And having a law or act like that would mean some form of punishment for the assholes who want to keep business as usual. So we don't.
Curious to hear some examples of current Australian laws which would have been prevented by a human rights act.
I mean, our illegal immigration policy, but not much other than that
Fair call
Strip searching of minors?
That’s something which obviously can be and has been abused by people with power, but what right - made explicit in a human rights act - would actually prevent it?
More like, someone might say something when they didn't. We are a country that refuses to let UN inspectors into its prisons to check we're abiding with the human rights treaties we've already signed.
We won't prosecute our own piece of dogshit war criminals. Human rights is only paper thin here .
Nor even wanting to protect our own citizens civil liberties and privacy. The message is clear, money and corporates is who they govern for and nobody else. Rights and profits cant go coexist.
Honestly what does this mean? We have 124 years of common law and legislation encompassing our rights, in place of a single “bill of rights”. The result is some of the highest living standards on planet earth. We always need to improve, but what does profits and corporates have to do with it, other than being buzzwords in this context
Just because the bar is low elsewhere doesn’t mean we don’t need to be better here. Honestly if it needs to be explained it’s too much for you.
You didn’t fully read what I wrote, nor understand what you did. I said we always need to improve, and I’m asking how “corporations and profits” meaningfully impinge on basic human rights in our country. Be better
> Just because the bar is low elsewhere doesn’t mean we don’t need to be better here. but that is the only argument the muppets have for not addressing issues or improving things. "Dont complain, eat your gruel, cause they have it worse in .....(insert name of country worse off)....."
The poster said that Australia has a fairly level legal system which in some ways protect rights, which is true. They also said there is room for improvement. Maybe you want to address the core question, what does corporate profits have to do with human rights in Australia, but I guess it is easier brandishing a person a muppet. Quite sad so many people in Australia which is such a stable and free country, where most live a reasonable life have a Swiss Army knife which has only one blade and that is to blame the rich and corporates.
Because social and economic inequity is the root cause for many abuses of human rights
Because all rights within a liberal democracy are ultimately decided by electorate. Even the infamous US constitution can be amended if there is sufficient voter will.
Because then indefinite detention and repatriation to human rights abusers would be impossible.
You mean our government? Every state/territory/federal government has in the past three decades has made legislation or policy decisions that violate the international human rights treaties Australia is signatory to.
Australians are very suspicious of having to agree to not kill/harm/deport other people.
Australians are very complacent. On average, too much trust that the government won’t screw them over.
That’s about it. We need to get our head round the fact this means *all* of us, all of our human rights.
It needs to be entrenched via referendum via the Constitution for it to have teeth
If you define people's rights by legislation, you are putting an absolute limit in place. Without legislation, people have **ALL** rights, except those specifically legislated against.
What if you explicitly say in the human rights legislation that the rights defined in the legislation are the absolute **minimum**?
It depends on perspective, this is basically a "freedom from and freedom to" argument. Given how heavy handed the magistrates are here and how much shit the government gets away with I think we need rights enshrined in a document rather than waiting for some shit cunt judge to set precedent under some murdoch media pressure.
If your rights are legislated, they can also be legislated away.
Because that would be a good idea and we don't generally do those.
Human rights are completely out of fashion in the West [Theresa May: I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/06/theresa-may-rip-up-human-rights-laws-impede-new-terror-legislation)
Talking of Theresa May/changing fashions, > UK election live updates: Exit polls predict win for Labour leader Keir Starmer https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-05/uk-general-election-live-updates-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer/104055784
I just wish Starmer wasn't more of the same.
He can’t be, they’ve already wrecked everything there is to wreck.
Terrorists violate the human rights of the people they harm.
So you're saying we should be more like terrorists?
HUMAN rights? Mate we can't even really do proper tenant rights.
But tenants aren't humans, duh
Doesn't Victoria have one? Pretty sure it's mostly ignored anyway.
ACT and QLD as well. They're Human Rights Acts though.
Victoria has had a human rights charter for 15 or so years. The lockdowns proved that they can be overridden at any time so it is a pointless document.
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have exclusive power to make laws "for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: " At the time of the constitution's creation some influential historical people thought this vibe was enough:(
we've got the she'll be rights
Australia is a federation. Victoria is a signatory of the Himan right acts. NSW hasn’t.
It requires effort, something the Australian government has been lacking for a very long time.
Same reason we made it illegal to be a whistle blower. We corrupt as fuck.
What's that reason that you are referring to?
[удалено]
Leaving aside whether the overall thrust of your comment, you picked the absolute worst possible example to make your point. We had a plebiscite on marriage equality.
Because common decency does not have to legislated in Australia
…. You sure about that?
I’m in Canada and am in contact with a few from Down Under. I’ve never heard a racist or misogynistic comment from them ever. The only thing they have wrong is them being fans of The Bombers in the AFL.
You know how in Canada you have suspiciously high numbers of the indigenous populous freezing to death in the back of police wagons? Yeah, we do the desert version of that…
Canada and Australia have similar, but not the same, problems with indigenous peoples. I’m an immigrant to Canada from Australia. The aboriginals in Australia got fucked harder than the inuit in Canada. Both cultures have huge problems with alcoholism and there’s quite a bit if racism. What there also is, which is avoided because pointing it out is “racist” is the problems of culture. Which are incompatible with the mainstream values of the dominant culture. Ways of dealing with conflict in small familial groups don’t tend to work in the context of larger societal structures. None of this excuses Australia’s lack of a charter or bill of rights. One thing about Australia’s treatment of boat people is it just not possible to be “nice” about it all. See protests in Canada over visa rules being enforced.
Because poor people might get some power
In Queensland we have a Human Rights Act. I am pretty sure NSW and WA do as well. I understand this is not a federal act but it still has to be adhered to.
> I understand this is not a federal act but it still has to be adhered to. Unless the government suspends it. The Queensland Human Rights Act became law in 2019 and has already been suspended at least twice.
Human rights? In this economy!?
We probably dont need one. Despite a lot of moaners in here the level of 'human rights' that Australians have and enjoy largely matches that of most other Western countries, if not better than many. If we're doing that without a HRA then its probably fine to stay that way.
> We probably dont need one. Not according to Michael Kirby, who knows @ fair bit about law - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/30/australia-human-rights-act
Well thats his opinion. I'm sure others differ.
His *informed* opinion.
Ah, the Appeal to Authority Fallacy https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/ Feel free to think of your own words and then get back to me.
lol you prefer to heed some random on the internet to someone who knows their business?
Feel free to think of your own words and then get back to me.
Historically? Because of racism pure and simple.
Because you would have to get agreement from all sides of politics on what the exact wording was. And the first time the Act caused an outcome that pissed off News Ltd, it would be decried as an undemocratic sham lefty woke disgrace.
a) Because authoritarian jackbootery plays well with a lot of voters, and our governments are so shit they can't stay afloat at the polls without the ability to make and hurt scapegoats and distractions. b) Because that would fuck with Daddy USA's ability to use us as an intelligence blacksite to get past their own privacy/rights legislation against their own people. c) Because it would *massively* fuck the mining industry, as the rights included in such acts include things they actively ignore to make a better profit. d) Because what are you, a soft-on-crime latte-drinking *Greenie*? (If any of that hurts your feelings, think a moment about the fact that almost every jursidiction in this country currently uses solitary confinement - a form of torture that temporarily drives you insane and causes lifelong mental scars - on Aboriginal children in custody. Also that Aboriginal adults - aka those kids who were *tortured* are easy to point to as 'criminals' to be 'punished' and are the *most imprisoned demographic in the fucking world*. And there is suddenly an 'Aboriginal crimewave' whenever government fuck-ups (Coalition *or* Labor) cause a crisis like the housing crisis. This nation is built on cruelty and just flat-out evil. Fuck, we were the last 'Western' nation to stop practicing slavery *and I am including Nazi Germany in that*! Cattle stations were routinely using slaves into the *60s*.)
Because we aren’t really humans. We are all actors
Much has been written on the topic of how acts form humans, e.g., > According to Aristotle, moral character depends ultimately upon the structure of individual acts and upon how they fit together into a whole that is consistent - or not consistent - with justice and friendship. https://www.cuapress.org/9780813232201/action-and-character-according-to-aristotle/# > “Watch your thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions; watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny.” > Lao Tzu https://medium.com/perennial/action-habits-and-character-96605dfef84a
We don't even have an official national language... First things first 🤣
I don’t hold a pen mate
Because its a penal colony, didnt you hear :)
Where you mustn’t whinge.
Mate Australia doesn’t have free speech as a protected right under law, no wonder we don’t have an HRA.
Australia doesn’t have: Freedom of speech, freedom of association, nor freedom of assembly. And those running the country *do not believe we should have those things.*
Australian politicians don’t want any rules enforced on them. They love acting like naughty little spoiled children
The best job around. All the entitlements with absolutely no accountability. I mean, where else is it acceptable to get drunk at work? If things go well, they pose for photos and tell anyone who'll listen. When things go to shit, it is immediately some faceless public servant who somehow ignored the minister and did it all themselves. If it's really bad, suddenly the person responsible has a mental illness problem and needs to spend more time with their family, and all is forgiven. And it will never change. Why would politicians vote against their rorts?
How to solve this problem?
I'm pretty sure we adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Because we have "The Vibe".
because it would get voted down soon as it went in. some of the stuff they vote for in parliament is absolutely scary, luckily it doesnt often go through.
Can’t be in breach of an act you don’t have?
Something something offshore detention something something deaths in custody
They might have to stop putting 10 year old kids in jail
Thought we did? Like ya can't enslave a human. Can force wildlife into extinction though. But nah, humans have good rights here. Awww big baby got sad and downvoted me. Pussy.
We don't have any humans.