Human Rights in Australia, Bearing

¶ … human rights in Australia, bearing in mind the treaties to which Australia is a State Party.

Stephen Wardle's death shocked the world in 1988. The case involved the death of an 18-year-old arrested for suspicion of drunkenness that was held for the night in police custody where he was discovered, in the early hours of the morning, dead. This case raised a lot of eyebrows because of the lack of cooperation from the police department officers who refused any type of interrogation. In any case, it was later discovered that the young man had died from "the toxic effects of prescribed drugs and alcohol, 'aggravated by lack of care'" (Amnesty International, 1996). this case drew the attention on the way in which Australia considers its human rights issues and the extent to which the country would use a more disciplined approach of the matter.

Australia is considered to be one of the most democratic countries in the world taking into account the fact that despite its history and its creation, it is part of the Commonwealth and enjoys one of the best practices in the area of human rights. Even so, it is the only western country which does not have a national bill of rights, an act considered to represent the basic principles a state must uphold when exercising the democratic rule.

Despite the fact that Australia represents one of the most important countries of its region and of the world, the question in regard to its human rights records is to what extent does the Australian government respect human rights as part of numerous international agreements, yet in the absence of a bill of human rights.

First and foremost, Australia must be perceived for a moment as one of the allies of the United States in the war against terrorism. This approach will immediately lead to the conclusion that the measures taken to support this course of action must to a certain extent and to some degree affect the liberties and freedoms of the individual. Despite the fact that Australia does not benefit from a sustainable legal structure in terms of human rights, the actions taken in the wake of the 9/11 events put a serious stress on the relationship between the government and the population. In this sense, legal actions are being taken in order to prevent any possible threat at the level of the national security.

One of the most important aspects to be taken into account is the restrictions imposed on the freedom of the individual. The anti-terrorist proposals of 2005 presented by the government address all the matters related to the liberty of the individual. The Human Rights Watch, one of the most important watchdogs in terms of democratic principles and human rights noticed in this sense that the entire set of rules proposed by the Australian government are in fact a "threat to civil liberties" (2005). More precisely the director of the organization clearly pointed out that "putting people under house arrest for a year by a control order is tantamount to jailing people without trial. This is a shocking departure from Australia's proud tradition of protecting individuals from an overly powerful state" (Human Rights Watch, 2006).

The matter of the arrest of the individual without the possibility of the respect for the right to discuss its arrest in private and under the rules of the attorney- client privacy is well shaken by the introduction of these proposals. It is not necessarily a matter of the actual implementation of such provisions but the way in which the Australian government understood to deal with the issue of security and the threat of terrorism. Indeed, there can be little discussion on the original nature of the provisions as the U.S. And Great Britain created similar rules in order to prevent any problems such as the 9/11 events. In any case, there have been few voices which actually protested against the issuing of this set of regulations. In the United States, on the other hand, there are constant debates over the actual limitations of the government in the conditions in which the U.S. was the one country most affected by terrorism. Therefore, one small conclusion may be that in relation to the issues of human rights, Australia can afford not to have a bill of human rights precisely because the government as well as its citizens does not feel the need to be legally protected by abuses.

One of the major causes for this lack of interest for the issue of human rights and its repercussions on the lives of the individual is the fact that there is no democratic education in Australia in the sense that the country was always faced with a certain respect for human rights to such a degree that most individuals were no longer willing to search for more. Therefore, it lacks education of democracy. Scholars have argued that "an urgent need for education in Australia about human rights and the international human rights processes. Every person must receive this education, from those making (and advising on) claims of human rights violations to government officials, as well as in schools, in the community and in institutions such as the legal and health systems.

This education is also needed to address misinformation about international human rights, to clarify what human rights are and to recognize that human rights include economic, social, cultural and collective rights" (McCorquodale, 1999). Therefore, this is one reasons for which the public is reluctant to oppose measures that in the end limit their qualities as individuals in a free society. They do not know the role of these rights in the society.

Another aspect which must be taken into account in order to actually answer the question over the Australian respect for human rights is the issue of treatment of the aboriginal population. History has pointed out the fact that the Australian continent is the result of a series of breeches of contemporary human rights such as the inability of the locals to be represented politically, but also from the point-of-view of the way in which human rights is understood in its more basic meaning, that is the right to life. Thus, the rights of the aborigine population are equal to inexistent. In most cases their living standard is reduced to that of present in third world countries in the conditions in which the country enjoys one of the highest living standards in the world and of the region. Thus, reports have shown that indeed the aborigine population is left outside any protection of the law or moral standards as "indigenous Aboriginal people have lost almost all their land and suffered many prejudices. Aborigines are the poorest group in Australia and suffer from very many preventable diseases" (Shah, 2000).

There have been numerous abuses undergone in regard to the aborigine population from the early history of the Australian state up to the present days when Australia is part of many conventions concerning human rights. Abuses included the arrest of aborigines without a probable cause, their denial of a trial, and the extension of jail time without a justification. From this point-of-view, can there be a positive discussion of Australia being the faithful observer of human rights throughout its territory? It may seem that on this matter it holds a negative balance.

This balance was noticed even inside the United Nations. Australia has always been viewed as an important element of the global organization particularly because it contributed in a rather considerable manner to the drafting of the Charter and other international conventions that have laid the foundations of the international law following the Second World War. Nonetheless, the practices of the Australian government has led the international organization to "only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The UN has also called racist the mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, which have given black Australians an imprisonment rate at least as high as that of apartheid South Africa, and have been a primary cause of one of the highest suicide rates in the world, among young Aborigines. The Howard government's response, on the eve of the Olympics, was to bar UN human rights officials from entering Australia and investigating further" (Pilger, 2000).

This labeling of the country is an important signal related to the actual situation in the country and the way in which this situation is perceived at the international level. More importantly however, the Australian case is a proof that the United Nations' documents in the area of human rights can and will be in the future surpassed. Therefore, the fact that Australia is part of several treaties such as "The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," "Convention on the Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination," and "The Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women" (Australian Government, 2008) is not a guarantee nor a proof that human rights are indeed respected.

Another aspect which is important to be taken into account in respect to human rights issues is the right to seek asylum. The 1951 UN Convention for Refugees states that asylum seekers should be helped by the country where they seek assistance in order to prevent the return of the people in a situation which would put their lives or their integrity in danger. However, for the Australian government such a provision is less important than the actual attempt to cut down on immigration and reduce the possibility of people entering legally or illegally in the country. In this sense, there is a famous case which points out precisely this attitude of the Australian government which pointed out the fact that indeed, there is no particular desire for the Australian officials to go beyond their national interest and work for the global one. Thus, in 2001 Australia refused to give assistance to some 434 Afghan seeking asylums in Australia. After a serious dispute with the Norwegian government, the Australian government officially denied access for the vessel in the Australian port (Australia accused of violating UN convention, 2001). The reason pressed forward was the intent of the government to stop immigration. Still, in a democratic state, with one of the most important economic perspectives in the world, is the breach of a United Nations Convention the best means for intervening on an immigration policy? From an international point-of-view and from the moral legitimacy of the UN Conventions, it is fair to say that the Australian government acts in a wrongfull manner.

There have been wide considerations in recent years over the validity of same sex relationships. In the past this aspect has been dealt with in more silent environments; still, as the U.S. deals with it openly and nowadays discussing the issue of lesbian relations or gay marriages is no longer a taboo issue, the law must deal with these matters properly. On the international scene, the discussions focus on the right of the individual to express himself and his sexual identity vs. The proper behavior in the society and inside a social environment. In any situation, it is a matter of human rights. In the end, no government can be allowed to limit the freedom of expression of an individual. Still, by banning gay marriages, governments achieve just that. On the other hand however, the public display of affection between same sex persons can be seen as breaching the limits of our social behavior and extending those of the private life beyond the intimacy of one's own home.

This difficult dilemma cannot be solved without a proper judgment of the elements involved, from the respect for human rights to the weight this issue has on the next electoral campaign. Yet the Australian government is split on this matter, a case which may prove that a certain attention is being given to the respect of human rights. Thus, the piece of legislation was given twice in 2007 a strong refusal from the legislative body in the sense that "the ACT move would have allowed homosexual couples to enter into civil unions with the same legal rights as traditional marriages" (Karvelas, 2007) and thus civil and moral rights would have been respected.