Ignorance is bliss, then?
Wow. You write just two sentences and still manage to strangle yourself with your own rope. That's pretty clever!
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Racism in Australia
- Thread starter gerg
- Start date
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
What MG said.
Plus: Do we have to do your homework for you?
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/
http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/
http://www.ahrcentre.org/
http://www.federationpress.com.au/bookstore/book.asp?isbn=9781862873063
Etc, etc.
It's not like it is a new subject at all. So ANTAR is just one of many hands waving just now.
enjoytheview
more exciting than pizza
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 4,740
I've assumed that "Human Rights Act" means essentially a Bill of Rights in the paragraph below.
From what I know about our political system, I don't think having a Bill of Rights added to our constitution won't have much effect. Our constitution is largely useless from a human rights perspective. For instance, virtually every Australian will argue that they and others are entitled to freedom of speech. Our politicians claim that they value freedom of speech for all Australians. Our courts will make decisions based on the implications of freedom of speech. Yet, nowhere in our constitution are we granted freedom of speech. In fact, if we were to use our constitution to determine the rights of Australians, we would have only one right: freedom of (and from) religion.*
Much of Australian politics is based on convention, and those conventions are in many cases just as powerful as constitutional law. For instance, when a bill is passed through Australian Parliament, it isn't official until the Governor General (GG) signs it. A GG, according to the constitution, can refuse to sign any bill that he/she likes- similar to the Presidential veto in the US. But, unlike the US, our senate can't then vote in a 2/3 majority to overturn the veto. So the GG essentially has the ultimate power. No GG has ever utilised this power, and I doubt it will ever be used. In fact, most political texts refer to it as merely a "theoretical" power, and that's pretty much all it is.
The leader of our nation exists purely by convention as well. The role and title of the Prime Minister is never mentioned in the Australian Constitution. The role of the GG is though, and if you read the Australian constitution you'd say that the most powerful person in Australia is the GG, who in actual fact has very little power.
This is the case for Australian human rights. They aren't necessarily written down anywhere, but they all exist by convention and are protected by our legal system. If we were to add the right to freedom of speech and a whole bunch of other things to our constitution, absolutely nothing will change except that the constitution will be longer and everybody will have had to waste time voting in a referendum. The rights of Indigenous Australians are as inherent (and are the same) as the rights of all other Australians according to Australian law and convention.
Where the equality ends is in standards of living. In my opinion, working towards improving health and education facilities by encouraging trained professionals to work in remote townships rather than in the city will be much more beneficial than adding a bunch of rights that already exist to a piece of paper that doesn't matter.
*I think that's the only one explicitly mentioned in our constitution. There may be a few others though.
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
The Australian Constitution is almost solely aimed at describing the limits, powers, convocation and operation of the federal parliament. The implication is that the parliament will then set the laws by which we live. Hardly startling stuff.
Regarding limits and powers, i.e. the scope of the law-making, here's Section 51 in full. I've highlighted what is probably the relevant bit:
Regarding limits and powers, i.e. the scope of the law-making, here's Section 51 in full. I've highlighted what is probably the relevant bit:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/index.htm
It does seem to be all totally black-and-white to you, doesn't it.
ANTAR's notions are no different to many other like-minded action groups here campaigning on exactly the same or very similar issues. They bring nothing new, and some of their "reports" are paper-thin exaggerations frankly. The group itself looks to be genuinely concerned, but basically misguided and misinformed.
So it is not so much a "dismissal" as "2/10 Can do better with more research".
Meanwhile, the real issues are much more complex and difficult, and those dealing with them are trying to make sensible headway despite the alarmist headlines and political power-play carrying-on.
Really? You're not having a lend of me, are you?
Just to clarify, there are four rights, religion being one of them. The others are the right to a trial by jury, the right to just compensation and the right to not be discriminated against based on what state you're from.
From what I'm aware the only implicit right is one to freedom of political communication.
Meed
boy named crow
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,206
Do you mean our soon-to-be-emigrant, ex-pollie and famous blood-nut Pauline?
Re the OP, I vaguely recall her saying something to the effect that "Abo's should really go back to the country they came from". Ah, me...
No I was referring to my parents' encounter with some of their colleagues there. No one famous.
Meed
boy named crow
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,206
What do you mean, let it stand? I didn't say it's a racist city, I said my parents were surprised at the racism of a few colleagues there. It wasn't like KKK/Hitler racism, more like "geez they're such an inconvenience and I have little sympathy for them".
Like I said a second hand anecdote doesn't mean much so ignore it if you like.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
No.
You - along with gerg - implied that the report and the website were both based in some fact. Yet you refused to pinpoint any fact and (it seems) expect others to dismantle the points therein piece by piece. Sorry mate, that aint going to happen.
Apologies if you felt you were "attacked".
Perhaps you could come up with some specifics now.
So which parts did you find interesting? Which parts are real?
You may not have said it was a racist city, but you did respond to a question about where the problem (ie racism) was more prevalent by posting "Surfers Paradise", so it was fair for me to counter it. I've been there many, many times.
Ah, sorry. To "spit the dummy" means to lose one's temper. It's derived from what a baby does when annoyed (dummy=pacifier, in Strine).
Similar terms used here are "to have a spray" (supposedly of spittle from shouting - ew); to "toss the teddy" (similar derivation to the above); and to "chuck a wobbly" (literally, to lose one's balance while ranting).
As to the former, no-one minds the subject being brought up at all. But it does irk when it is raised in such a fashion that it clearly implies (1) all non-aboriginal Australians are seething racists, and (2) all aboriginals are downtrodden and destitute. It just isn't true.
I can say from first-hand experience, some selected parts of rural Western Australia really do approach the KKK/Hitler level w.r.t. racist attitudes to aboriginals. Pretty frightening!