James Fehon
23 February 2009, 02:23PM

Hi Chris
I support legislation including all those rights listed in the UDHR & related covenants (AIA has a list of these at http://amnesty.org.au/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights/ )
I do think this sort of legislation will benefit our society as a whole, not just minority groups.  The Australian Human Rights commission gives some good examples of this: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/letstalkaboutrights/info.html

There’s also some specific cases showing human rights legislation benefiting everyday people in Victoria & UK at http://www.hrlrc.org.au/html/s02_article/article_view.asp?id=438&nav_cat_id=188&nav_top_id=70

I agree the Bill of Rights is better than nothing but there’s some things (right to bear arms) I don’t think should be adopted here. It also leaves out many of the rights now recognised internationally.
The case studies & examples above really broaden the conversation, because you’re right, many people don’t know the majority really will benefit as well.

Chris
23 February 2009, 10:16AM

James

Thank you for your response. My comment about the right not to be offended was in reference to the growing area of hate speach legislation.

You obviously feel that Human Rights legislation will improve things in Australia and I would like to hear you argument on this, however as you’ve probarly guessed by now I am a conservative and therefore deeply suspicious of any attempt to introduce more laws or regulations. I cannot see how human rights legislation would improve the rights of my community, the only people that would benefit from this is minority groups who would attempt to assert their rights over the rest of the community.

If we must have human rights legistaltion I would like suggest that you take a look at the first 10 ammendments of the US constitution - a ready made off the self piece of legislation that has worked for two centuries.

James Fehon
20 February 2009, 03:54PM

I think rights protection strengthens democracy - and reinforces all the values we believe in. I’ve never heard of a right not to be offended - maybe you mean hate speach and incitement to violence.  I don’t think Amnesty’s suppressed anything here - we should all be free to express ourselves but also have the right to feel safe - I’ve been offended before and on the other had have been threated - there’s a pretty clear difference.
I think all that the continued detention of the two men you refer to shows is that Amnesty along with the British majority (96%) who support legislation protecting their freedoms and rights agree that their government should not deport people into countries who won’t respect these same rights.  Sure certain rights are taken away when you’re found guilty but if you can’t guarantee certain basic rights are met than don’t deport people!

A Human Rights Act will bring so many positives and you’re misrepresenting the UK’s completely

Chris
19 February 2009, 08:11AM

As the UK and EU have shown us the creation of a Human Rights Bill will threaten our democracy. This threat will occur when a particular group’s right not to be offended conflicts with our right to free speech, a right which groups like amnesty have been keen to suppress.

Also thanks to the sterling efforts of Amnesty the people of the UK have been forced to keep and maintain men like Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. Finally the UK government today has developed a spine and is now standing up to Amnesty.