On Thursday February 4, The Australian published an opinion by Elise Parham, who purports to be interested in the “legal protection of human rights”. At least that is what her bio claims.
However, the article in The Australian clearly rubbished the notion of human rights protections vis-à-vis, a charter or bill of rights. By the use of eloquent words, Parham blurred counter-factual comments with specious reasoning, containing all the hallmarks of a scare campaign.
The article described a charter of rights as: undemocratic, a Shakespearean tragedy, a serpent, and a control mechanism of judges, special interest groups and lobbyists. Interestingly, it is claimed that one can only delve these notions by “reading between the lines” of arguments in favour of a Charter.
I note that emotional, fear-mongering and ill-informed comments about a human rights charter do not make for robust, reasoned, logical debate and therefore do little to enhance Parham’s cause.
Every day many people around Australia suffer human rights abuses. These abuses have been well documented in the more than 35,000 submissions to the National Human Rights Consultation Committee. These people are not in a position to obtain any restitution, because Australia lacks a framework to support and remedy (let alone prevent) human rights violations.
Many independent researchers, academics and judges have presented clear arguments in favour of an Australian charter of rights. For example, while still on the High Court, Justice Michael Kirby answered a slew of common criticisms in a speech entitled: The National Debate About a Charter of Rights & Responsibilities: Answering Some of the Critics, delivered on August 21, 2008. Read his reasoned and rational explanations here.
A charter would give people a clear understanding of what to expect from public authorities and from each other, providing a “social contract” framework for giving practical effect to our common values. It would provide explicit recognition that human rights come with responsibilities, and must be exercised in a way that respects the rights of others.
At present, the common law is piecemeal and can be overridden by legislation — where legislative intent is clear and unambiguous, common law principles and presumptions can do little to safeguard human rights.
Well said Mr Blumer. Australia’s attitude to human rights legislation is akin to the woman who was wartching her son at the passing out parade and proudly pointed out to her friends that her Jonny was the only one marching in step. For all the scaremongering of Ms Parnham and her ilk the great Australian public seems not to know that Australia is almost unique in not having a Charter of Rights or equivalent.
One of the leading opponents is Professor James Allan of the University of Queensland. Mr Allan opposed a charter for his native Canada but they ignored his advice and passed legislation that actually strengthened an earlier version. Canda is the better for it. Mr Allan then went to New Zealand where he led the charge against that country’s Bill of Rights. Fortunately the New Zealanders were not persuaded and they now have a Bill that is modelled on the Canadian Charter and the country is much the better for it. I spoke with one conservative member of the NZ Court of Appeal who told me that he had been among the doubters but actual exposure to the Bill had changed his mind.
None of which will stop the naysayers here who persist in repeating the hoary myths so eloquently exposed in speech by Justice Kirby that you link to.
Maybe David Lodge, who queries “Who and where are these people Mark? And what kind of abuses?” should ask a few Aboriginal people, mental patients, prisoners and refugees – for a start – about how well their rights are protected in Australia. And a read of Chloe Hooper’s book “The Tall Man” may indicate that systemic neglect of human rights is part and parcel of Australian life.
An example. A prisoner is put in shackles in an Australian gaol. I appeal to the Human Rights Commissioner in Canberra. He says it is a state issue. I call the local Human Rights and Equal Opportunity office. I am told that the person with the power is the superintendent. As he had to impose the punishment, changing his mind was unlikely. So I called one of the local shock jocks – and Amnesty International in London – and the shackles came off within a day. Not good enough David for a supposedly democratic country