I commented yesterday or the day before on a report of the release of the government commissioned report on a bill of rights and argued against the idea.
Today Paul Kelly has two articles, including one with another person, that show problems with the report and its recommended approaches. See:
Paul Kelly: "Human rights report poisoned chalice", 10/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26188812-12250,00.html
Paul Kelly and Chris Merritt: "Human rights charter a recipe for chaos as Frank Brennan cites 'enormous problems'", 10/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26189707-601,00.html
Kelly is an experienced political commentator and the editor at large of the Australian.
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
2009-10-09
No need for a bill of rights in Australia
Comments on Frank Brennan “A fairer go for all”, 9/10/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26183726-5013480,00.html
Are human rights really issues in Australia? The answer is very likely to be no. Then why is the fuss about a bill of rights?
It is likely the fuss about a bill of rights is due to some extreme leftists to push their own agenda at the expenses of the freedoms of all people. They want people’s freedom taken away and dictated by judges. They want people live in fear.
There is no need for a bill of rights to shackle people in Australia. If there is any problem, then the elected people in government and parliament can deal with them through legislations.
A fair go can be created within the existing legal framework without resort to a bill of rights. To the contrary, such a bill is more likely to create inequality by taking away people’s freedom unnecessarily. As a result, such a bill will suffocate innovations. It will reduce Australians’ well fair.
All Australians are better off without a bill of rights. Any attempts to have one should be opposed by Australians.
Are human rights really issues in Australia? The answer is very likely to be no. Then why is the fuss about a bill of rights?
It is likely the fuss about a bill of rights is due to some extreme leftists to push their own agenda at the expenses of the freedoms of all people. They want people’s freedom taken away and dictated by judges. They want people live in fear.
There is no need for a bill of rights to shackle people in Australia. If there is any problem, then the elected people in government and parliament can deal with them through legislations.
A fair go can be created within the existing legal framework without resort to a bill of rights. To the contrary, such a bill is more likely to create inequality by taking away people’s freedom unnecessarily. As a result, such a bill will suffocate innovations. It will reduce Australians’ well fair.
All Australians are better off without a bill of rights. Any attempts to have one should be opposed by Australians.
2009-09-25
An interesting view on China's one-child-policy by an Australian
An interesting and rare article by an Australian on China's one-child-policy. See: Dan Ryan, One-child policy aborting our growth, 25/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26120527-7583,00.html
Although the point was on the impact on Australia growth, it is thought provoking even for Chinese.
I have argued that the West argument on China's human rights issues misses important relevance and target. The household registration system and the one-child-policy are much important and affect many more people in China than the so called Tibet issue promoted by the West.
The West is either completely ignorant or totally biased. Or absolutely hypocritical!
Although the point was on the impact on Australia growth, it is thought provoking even for Chinese.
I have argued that the West argument on China's human rights issues misses important relevance and target. The household registration system and the one-child-policy are much important and affect many more people in China than the so called Tibet issue promoted by the West.
The West is either completely ignorant or totally biased. Or absolutely hypocritical!
2009-09-10
Democracy and freedom?
The following report should be an interesting reminder of that even democracy does not neceassrily mean much to personal freedom and equality between persons.
I heard in the past that there were different classes of people in India, but have thought those were probably past. But some things in India still appear odd.
Are they part of the human rights that many western politicians talk about?
ABS report: "Indian farmers sell wives to pay debts", 10/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681503.htm?section=justin
I heard in the past that there were different classes of people in India, but have thought those were probably past. But some things in India still appear odd.
Are they part of the human rights that many western politicians talk about?
ABS report: "Indian farmers sell wives to pay debts", 10/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681503.htm?section=justin
2009-08-24
A poor public policy: the ACT government to ban fireworks
Comments on ABC report “ACT bans fireworks”, 24/08/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/24/2664761.htm?section=justin
The report says that "The ACT Government has banned the use of fireworks on the Queen's Birthday long weekend."
That is appalling and terrible news. It is a gross violation of people's rights.
Why should all people should suffer for only a handful people's fault of not to follow regulations in terms of restricted time and places? It should be the government's responsibility to enforce regulations or whoever finds that offensive to report the unruly activities. If they can't do it, then it is their problems, and should not punish others for their own problems.
Why so many people freedom and enjoyment is disallowed by the government? They were not voted for such a poor policy.
Further, why should some animals rights be above people's rights? Why can't pet owners control their pets to avoid injuries?
There are public displays of very large scale fireworks in every State. Why does government not ban them and only ban private fireworks? It is illogical and low politics by government.
In the ACT, the policy has been hijacked by Mr John Hargreaves, Minister for Industrial Relations. He argued the reason of such a ban was the move follows an increasing level of misuse, as he said:
"The reasons for such a ban are about property damage, injury to domestic animals and wildlife and of course the general disruption."
He blames other people for his own failures.
There are so many things that can be used for crimes or disorders. Should all those things be banned?
The report says that "The ACT Government has banned the use of fireworks on the Queen's Birthday long weekend."
That is appalling and terrible news. It is a gross violation of people's rights.
Why should all people should suffer for only a handful people's fault of not to follow regulations in terms of restricted time and places? It should be the government's responsibility to enforce regulations or whoever finds that offensive to report the unruly activities. If they can't do it, then it is their problems, and should not punish others for their own problems.
Why so many people freedom and enjoyment is disallowed by the government? They were not voted for such a poor policy.
Further, why should some animals rights be above people's rights? Why can't pet owners control their pets to avoid injuries?
There are public displays of very large scale fireworks in every State. Why does government not ban them and only ban private fireworks? It is illogical and low politics by government.
In the ACT, the policy has been hijacked by Mr John Hargreaves, Minister for Industrial Relations. He argued the reason of such a ban was the move follows an increasing level of misuse, as he said:
"The reasons for such a ban are about property damage, injury to domestic animals and wildlife and of course the general disruption."
He blames other people for his own failures.
There are so many things that can be used for crimes or disorders. Should all those things be banned?
2009-07-29
Safety of overseas students and Australian principle of equality
Comments on Luke Slattery “Education debacle to cost us badly”, 29/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25850835-5016677,00.html
It is not just the revenue but also what we Australians stand for are important and at stake. Yes overseas students generate revenue for our universities and contribute to our education exports. That is important and there is no question about it
However, what is even more important is what we Australians stand for. We are a nation and people proud of the principles of equality and egalitarian society. We are also proud of our human rights record. As such a nation, we should welcome other people coming to our country, no matter they are visiting, studying or permitted working. We should and must provide as safe an environment to our visitors as to ourselves.
We should treat them as equal and afford them with the decent human rights we so dearly cherish, love and defend. Only by doing that truthfully with our warm hearts, we can really be proud of ourselves as an equal society that is characterised by the equalitarian principle.
The attacks on Indian students are a reflection of some problems that needs not only close attention but also serious actions by governments, universities and the public at large. While those attacks have been made public, some much more serious incidents, including killings of overseas students and visitors have not received anywhere enough attention or reporting.
We must face them, confronting them and resolving them.
It is not just the revenue but also what we Australians stand for are important and at stake. Yes overseas students generate revenue for our universities and contribute to our education exports. That is important and there is no question about it
However, what is even more important is what we Australians stand for. We are a nation and people proud of the principles of equality and egalitarian society. We are also proud of our human rights record. As such a nation, we should welcome other people coming to our country, no matter they are visiting, studying or permitted working. We should and must provide as safe an environment to our visitors as to ourselves.
We should treat them as equal and afford them with the decent human rights we so dearly cherish, love and defend. Only by doing that truthfully with our warm hearts, we can really be proud of ourselves as an equal society that is characterised by the equalitarian principle.
The attacks on Indian students are a reflection of some problems that needs not only close attention but also serious actions by governments, universities and the public at large. While those attacks have been made public, some much more serious incidents, including killings of overseas students and visitors have not received anywhere enough attention or reporting.
We must face them, confronting them and resolving them.
2009-07-10
A fair international game for all in reducing emissions
The US house of representatives has passed a bill to reduce greenhouse emissions and the bill will need to be past in the US senate to become a law. It is an encouraging sign from the US that has acted to drag the international efforts to reduce emissions in the past, re the Kyoto protocol.
The recent G-8 meeting is reported to be going to make declaration on reducing greenhouse emissions. Some reports say G-8 countries would reduce their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. It is commendable target and encouraging.
There are also reports that the developing countries are expected to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
While all these seem to be good, there are some interesting questions that demand answers sooner or later. For example, what is a fair target of emissions reductions and hence the level of emissions by a certain time for a particular country? This is relevant and unavoidable, because some of the developing countries have almost negligible emissions per capita. Do we ask them also to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050? Is that fair for that country? How can that country raise its living standard?
It would be difficult to reach an agreement on fair emissions levels for countries. However, it seems fair enough to have an equal right for every person to have the same level of emissions at a future time, even the past responsibility of who have contributed to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is forgiven. The number of total population should also be decided at a time, so any future changes in population should be the responsibility of individual countries. If a country has faster population growth its total allowable emissions levels will not be increased.
An equal per capita level of allowable emissions should be an important part of fundamental human rights, irrespective who is rich or poor, where he or she lives, which country he or she belongs to.
The international community must resolve this fundamental issue of fair levels of emission entitlement for everyone on the global at a certain time.
The recent G-8 meeting is reported to be going to make declaration on reducing greenhouse emissions. Some reports say G-8 countries would reduce their emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. It is commendable target and encouraging.
There are also reports that the developing countries are expected to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.
While all these seem to be good, there are some interesting questions that demand answers sooner or later. For example, what is a fair target of emissions reductions and hence the level of emissions by a certain time for a particular country? This is relevant and unavoidable, because some of the developing countries have almost negligible emissions per capita. Do we ask them also to reduce their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050? Is that fair for that country? How can that country raise its living standard?
It would be difficult to reach an agreement on fair emissions levels for countries. However, it seems fair enough to have an equal right for every person to have the same level of emissions at a future time, even the past responsibility of who have contributed to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is forgiven. The number of total population should also be decided at a time, so any future changes in population should be the responsibility of individual countries. If a country has faster population growth its total allowable emissions levels will not be increased.
An equal per capita level of allowable emissions should be an important part of fundamental human rights, irrespective who is rich or poor, where he or she lives, which country he or she belongs to.
The international community must resolve this fundamental issue of fair levels of emission entitlement for everyone on the global at a certain time.
No one should be hypocritical Australians included
Comments on ABC news report "Rudd won't rule out Rio intervention", 10/07/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/10/2622168.htm?section=justin and some of the comments related to that report.
I just wrote some comments and sent them to the ABC.
I copied my comments but lost them in the process. I will try to find them if the ABC publish them.
I just wrote some comments and sent them to the ABC.
I copied my comments but lost them in the process. I will try to find them if the ABC publish them.
Mr Turnbull is rushing again - this time on the detention of Mr Hu and on international affairs
Comments on the news report “China accuses Rio Tinto's Hu of bribery during iron ore negotiations”, 10/07/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Hu-accused-of-bribery-during-negotiation-TT7D5?OpenDocument
Mr Turnbull is acting irresponsibly now. He says “Mr Hu deserves to be protected, he deserves the protection and the intervention of the Australian prime minister.” What if Mr Hu really violated Chinese laws? If that is the case, why should he deserve protection and protection of Australian prime minister? Isn’t it a ridiculer argument? What nonsense is that?
You say that “It is completely unacceptable”. What is acceptable to you? Do you want China not to prosecute any person who breaches its laws? Do you also want that to be applied in Australia?
Mr Turnbull says “He (Mr Hu) was arrested by the Chinese secret police, taken to an unknown location, and is being held there without access to his family, his employers, to a lawyer or to consular officials ... an extraordinary denial of human rights”. Mr Hu was arrested in China presumably according to Chinese laws. There are agreements between Australia and China on reporting of detetion of each other’s citizen and the time within which consular access must be given, as the Australian foreign minister has said. So far it has not been reported that China has breached those agreements. So why was the matter an extraordinary denial of human rights, Mr Turnbull? Doesn’t it show you violate the rights of others by wrongfully accusing China, by asking for special favour for an accused person without knowing if those accusations are correct or not? Isn’t this another of your acting in a rushed, emotional and unchecked and unbalanced manner as you did in accusing Rudd misleading the parliament for that you have been burnt severely?
As the opposition leader of this country, you should act responsibly and reasonably. Political opportunistic actions are unlikely to earn you the respect you seek. If you continue act like this, your position as the opposition leader is unlikely to last long. You shouldn’t be hypocritical in talking about human rights by denying the rights of a nation!
Mr Turnbull is acting irresponsibly now. He says “Mr Hu deserves to be protected, he deserves the protection and the intervention of the Australian prime minister.” What if Mr Hu really violated Chinese laws? If that is the case, why should he deserve protection and protection of Australian prime minister? Isn’t it a ridiculer argument? What nonsense is that?
You say that “It is completely unacceptable”. What is acceptable to you? Do you want China not to prosecute any person who breaches its laws? Do you also want that to be applied in Australia?
Mr Turnbull says “He (Mr Hu) was arrested by the Chinese secret police, taken to an unknown location, and is being held there without access to his family, his employers, to a lawyer or to consular officials ... an extraordinary denial of human rights”. Mr Hu was arrested in China presumably according to Chinese laws. There are agreements between Australia and China on reporting of detetion of each other’s citizen and the time within which consular access must be given, as the Australian foreign minister has said. So far it has not been reported that China has breached those agreements. So why was the matter an extraordinary denial of human rights, Mr Turnbull? Doesn’t it show you violate the rights of others by wrongfully accusing China, by asking for special favour for an accused person without knowing if those accusations are correct or not? Isn’t this another of your acting in a rushed, emotional and unchecked and unbalanced manner as you did in accusing Rudd misleading the parliament for that you have been burnt severely?
As the opposition leader of this country, you should act responsibly and reasonably. Political opportunistic actions are unlikely to earn you the respect you seek. If you continue act like this, your position as the opposition leader is unlikely to last long. You shouldn’t be hypocritical in talking about human rights by denying the rights of a nation!
Don't bully, Mr Sheridan
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Big risk in nasty business”, 10/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25759154-5013460,00.html
Mr Sheridan, do you believe in the rule of laws at all? What evidence do you have that the arrest does have no basis and is what you said is “Cold War rhetoric and indeed Cold War impulses”? Shouldn’t you at least allow the event to play out and show that the arrest was not done according to the rule of laws?
You are spreading the fear that this arrest will do lasting harm to China's interests, not only in Australia, but throughout the Western world. From your attitude, why do or should you need to worry whether China’s interest is to be harmed or not? It that your business?
It is true that Rio is a large mining company. But does that mean that if any of its employees has done something unlawful they should not be dealt with by the law? What logic is yours on this?
You say that “there is an air of contempt in the way the Chinese authorities have failed to respond to Australian government requests for information and for consular access to MrHu until today”. Did the Chinese violate any agreement with Australian on this?
I don’t know what Mr Hu has done in terms of the Chinese accusations (for that matter you are unlikely to know either), but they did say something about it. Given the matter should be dealt with properly according to the law, why should the Rudd government secure Mr Hu's release within a few days? Would that be an act in the spirit of the rule of laws?
Don’t you need to reflect on what your bully tactics to other nations you don’t like?
Mr Sheridan, do you believe in the rule of laws at all? What evidence do you have that the arrest does have no basis and is what you said is “Cold War rhetoric and indeed Cold War impulses”? Shouldn’t you at least allow the event to play out and show that the arrest was not done according to the rule of laws?
You are spreading the fear that this arrest will do lasting harm to China's interests, not only in Australia, but throughout the Western world. From your attitude, why do or should you need to worry whether China’s interest is to be harmed or not? It that your business?
It is true that Rio is a large mining company. But does that mean that if any of its employees has done something unlawful they should not be dealt with by the law? What logic is yours on this?
You say that “there is an air of contempt in the way the Chinese authorities have failed to respond to Australian government requests for information and for consular access to MrHu until today”. Did the Chinese violate any agreement with Australian on this?
I don’t know what Mr Hu has done in terms of the Chinese accusations (for that matter you are unlikely to know either), but they did say something about it. Given the matter should be dealt with properly according to the law, why should the Rudd government secure Mr Hu's release within a few days? Would that be an act in the spirit of the rule of laws?
Don’t you need to reflect on what your bully tactics to other nations you don’t like?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
