The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Furphies rise to greet the bill of rights
|
Before the starting gun has even been fired the conservatives are working up the mother of all scare campaigns against the idea that Australia should do what every other serious and functioning democracy does — protect human rights through law. Today, The Australian, in announcing that priest Frank Brennan would chair a consultative committee to look at the issue, quoted former Blair government Home Secretary Jack Straw as an opponent for a charter of rights. Mr Straw calls it a “villains charter.” This is the same Mr Straw who was part of the Blair government which introduced section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 that has been used to arrest peace activists. As The Independent noted on 27 July 2007, this law has been used to detain “Walter Wolfgang, the veteran peace activist who heckled Jack Straw, when he was Foreign Secretary, at the 2005 Labour conference.” And “in the same year, John Catt, 81, was detained as he walked towards the seafront for an anti war demonstration near the conference hall in Brighton. He fell foul of the police after he was spotted wearing a T-shirt accusing Tony Blair and George Bush of war crimes. The police record said the ‘purpose’ of the stop and search was ‘terrorism’.”, The Independent reported. And this is the same Jack Straw who supports the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005 which, again as The Independent pointed out, has been used to stop a woman from reading out a list of the Iraq war dead on the Cenotaph in Whitehall and against a tour guide who organised an anti-war tea party opposite the House of Commons. If Mr Straw is to be a poster boy for the conservatives’ anti-human rights charter campaign then we can all sleep easy at night. Frank Brennan’s appointment reflects the conservatism of the Prime Minister. Brennan is a human rights activist of sorts, but he recently went ballistic over abortion law reform in Victoria and argued that Catholic doctors should be able to turn away a pregnant woman who wants an abortion, without referring her to another doctor. So human rights is a relative concept for Brennan. His father, Gerard, who was Chief justice of Australia from 1995 to 1998, is a long-time supporter of a bill or charter of rights. One hopes that some of this wisdom influences Frank as he embarks on what could be, if firmly grasped, the opportunity to make the lives of ordinary Australians a whole lot better by allowing them to enforce their human rights. One furphy that needs to be put to bed at the outset is the absurd notion that a charter or bill of rights gives the courts too much power. This is a line Mr Straw has been trotting out of late, and it is mantra for conservatives. Don’t these people understand democracy 101? It appears not. If they did, they would know that the judiciary is an equal partner, with the executive and the parliament in our system of democracy. And they would recognise that one of the fundamental roles of the courts is to give individuals protection from the excesses of the executive. Oh and by the way, Canada has had a Charter of Rights and Freedoms since 1982 and it is supported across the political spectrum and by over 90% of Canadians — not a bad electoral road test for something that, according to its misguided and intellectually barren critics, threatens to end the world as we know it. |
|
|
11 Comments
Hi Dave - I can dispel your concerns and the point you raise is a legitimate one. A bill or charter of rights can lead to improved outcomes in health, education and housing. It also helps to change the culture of government departments which are forced to think about the human rights implications of policies. That is one of the reasons ordinary Canadians are so keen on their Charter - it is their weapon against government.
Many of the human rights cases run in countries such as New Zealand, Canada and the UK have involved people who could not afford lawyers. In this area of human rights you will find that the majority of lawyers work on cases not for the money but because it is their ethial duty to ensure justice for those who cannot afford it.
John James - a perfect example of the furphy in full flight! Paranoid delusions about “agendas” of the Left, ad hominem smears about killing the unborn - what about those of us who support a bill of rights as a bulwark against the increasing power of the State? Hardly left-wing, or pro-abortion for that matter.
(memo to self - must not react to trolls….)
A Human Rights Act which provided a reassurance that no person can be detained indefinitely without charge - for their whole lives-redundancy intended- would restore our national sense of a FAIR GO.
Denying government the right to legislate to detain children indefinitely would be a plus also.
Barnes and the Left, aside from their usual endorsement of the killing of the inborn, love the concept of a Bill of Rights, because it allows them to circumvent the democratic roadblocks to their agenda.
Greg, can your next article on a bill of rights include some examples of practical benefits for ordinary citizens? Many (including myself) suspect that a bill of rights might mean a bit of extra work for lawyers and a few benefits for those who can afford this, can you dispel my concerns?
There’s the ‘case’ and there’s the ‘joke’. Thanks for supporting the ‘case’ Greg.
I found some of the arguments I was looking for in this article: http://www.hrc.act.gov.au/assets/docs/Manning%20Clark%20House%20Weekend%20of%20Ideas%202008%20-%20a%20national%20bill%20of%20rights%20final.doc
Having quickly looked through this article (I’ll have a deeper read tonight), it has helped me clarify my understanding. I’m still ambivalent though. The obvious two examples of recent times which would be affected by a bill of rights would be powers to detain under terrorism laws and aspects of the NT intervention. Both of these are examples of cases where human rights are diminished, for what John James refers to as “democratic” reasons and what a Government might defend as a case of ends justifying means.
The principle attributed to Mandela is a very sound one, though. The measure of a society is not in how it treats its ordinary citizens, but how it treats the lowest citizens such as prisoners or the homeless. My concern is that societies which have Bills of Rights don’t always achieve well on Mandela’s standards.
Greg, you can’t go about lauding the benefits and protection that a Bill of Rights would afford us all as citizens, while at the same time deriding a citizen for exercising the one right that is currently enshrined in our Constitution. Namely s.116 which covers freedom of religion. In relation to the Victorian Abortion Law, Frank Brennan was merely putting forward the argument that Catholic medicos and health professionals should not be forced to participate in an activity that contravenes their religious beliefs. It has always been a matter of conscience for individual Catholic practitioners. While he may have advocated that Catholic doctors not be obliged to formally refer a client, I don’t remember him ever stating that they would not / could not advise their client to seek an affirmative health practitioner.
As far as a Bill of Rights goes though, I think it is an excellent idea, despite what the Doomsayers say.
Thanks for the article. Very on point.
Read a few decisions of the Canadian High court before you sprout off about how must we have a Bill of Rights please. There are a few shockers in there.
Be very careful what you wish for, because with KRudd in power, you might just get it!
I would like the opportunity to join the Crikey commentary on our proposed Bill/Charter/Act of Rights. But as there is no draft I can’t. Those that do comment appear to know that it will or will not protect the unborn, will or not will not protect us from the astigmatisms in the eyes of AFP, and/or will or will not allow us the right to answer back the shock jocks.
From my own view of the lessons of history in the trust stakes, I Iean towards the judges over the pollies. But we could swing the game back towards the politicians by electing our judges. If that isn’t sufficiently appeasing we might also appoint our pollies - sort of in the manner of a GWB cabinet and close friends.
In this touchy-feely decade, do we want the Bill/Charter/Act to be a list of DOs or a list of DON”Ts?