Father Frank Brennan © Australian Catholic University
Ask Frank a question
7 October 2009, 12:47PM
On Wednesday 14 October after his Canberra Press Club presentation, Consultation Committee Chair Father Frank Brennan sat down for a chat with Amnesty Campaign Coordinator Jenny Leong. Jenny asked questions from Amnesty supporters about the Human Rights Consultation Committee's report and the consultation process. You can see all of the great questions submitted below.
Please check out our videos of Frank's responses (unfortunately we weren't able to get to all 57 questions! Thank you to everyone who took this opportunity to talk with the Chair of Australia's biggest ever public consultation.
Return to the main Human Rights Act for Australia campaign page
Comments
Jennifer Edelman | Posted on 14 October 2009, 08:26AM | Report comment
I would like to ask whether, if we have a Human Rights Act, will we end up with the dreadful situation in the USA where criminals get away with horrendous crimes because there are so many clauses their wily lawyers can get them off “on technical grounds”. I for one, do not admire the American system, when blatently guilty people can get away with crimes because of savvy lawyers, while innocent people without the money to employ lawyers end up in gaol, sometimes for their whole life, and even worse, sometimes executed.
maryelen flynn | Posted on 14 October 2009, 12:45AM | Report comment
i now realize what i said was not what i meant to say , i resally and truly do believe in a human rights act and know in my heart that it will happen. what i would like to know is does Fr Frank believe in Gay Marriages.
Ian | Posted on 13 October 2009, 10:17PM | Report comment
Father Brennan
To what extent does reconciliation with our Indigenous Brothers and Sisters form part of the drafting of the proposed Human Rights Act??
Regards
Ian
Stephen G Hatch | Posted on 13 October 2009, 10:03PM | Report comment
- i would like to ask father frank - can we every expect to have enshrined in our constitution all, if any, of the 30 articles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights - that Australia has signed - can we every expect to every live up to any of these articles, and should this not be the foundation on which to build a human rights act into our constitution?
victor waterson | Posted on 13 October 2009, 07:39PM | Report comment
Why didnt Amnesty stand up for pauline hanson as she became Australia’s first ever political prisoner ? We only tend to believe human rights violations only occur in 3rd world countries as far as I know we are not one yet !!!
Peter Reay | Posted on 13 October 2009, 06:40PM | Report comment
Hi there Frank,
How long does it take to get human rights legislation for the Australian Aborigines… first. Respectfully.
helen Frances Sanderson | Posted on 13 October 2009, 05:24PM | Report comment
Will a bill of human right deal with the rights of very ill people to die in a medically supported way. ie include something about euthanasia. This is a difficult ethical issue which affects many very ill or old people who have lost their quality of life and would like to have the option to end their life in a supported way
Ken Fernandes | Posted on 13 October 2009, 03:16PM | Report comment
What are the obstacles Australians face in passing this Human Rights Act? What do you think ordinary Australians can do to ensure their human rights are protected and this Act is passed?
Rita Julie Schaffer | Posted on 13 October 2009, 03:15PM | Report comment
Einstein once said that insanity was doing the same thing over & over again & expecting different results.
The global financial meltdown necessitates our right to demand value & accountability for our tax dollars. Judge Dawe, who demeans & terrorizes women in the F C needs to be ousted by the Attorney General. Judges are untouchable & by implication above the law. They’re unaccountable for their decisions. Demand performance appraisals by the tax payers who pay their salaries. Their bizarre decisions should be made known to the public. If this were the case, diabolical reforms would have occurred years ago. Judge Dawe came from the Juvenile Justice court. No doubt, she treated the juveniles who came before her like subhumans. I came before her on many occasions. She has never been married & she lives with her mother. In one case she sent a woman (a victim of DV to gaol - despite receiving victims of crime compensation.)
Judge Dawe is an evil person & needs to be treated accordingly.
Alex N | Posted on 13 October 2009, 03:01PM | Report comment
I am very concerned about the rights of the mentally ill and their right to proper legal assistance to protect their rights at mental health tribunals. Only a psychiatrist may counter a diagnosis. Most cannot afford to hire another opinion. People receive labels which then affects their future. The media has highlights enforced involuntary treatment of electric shock treatment. Up to 70% of people loose their case to stop this and despite their objections are forcibly injected and electric shocked. If you refuse, the police come and get you. ECT is known to cause permanent memory loss as well as other adverse reactions and is a treatment with no known scientific proof of its ‘claimed’ efficacy. Our mentally ill suffer constant human rights abuses from within the mental health system and need urgent protection.
lisa anketell | Posted on 13 October 2009, 02:07PM | Report comment
does it not make a mockery of the legal aid system , that it is soo difficult for legally aided candidates to find satisfactory representation. there is no financhial encouragement for the best lawyers and solicitors to take on legally aided cases. my solicitor seems to be as rare as hens teeth. surley, this is fundamental to one’s basic right to be represented? thanks for your great work.
Nathan Johnston | Posted on 13 October 2009, 01:43PM | Report comment
Rita Julie Schaffer,
I’m not pushing my issue however I find it increasingly detrimental to society that religious agendas are ruining human rights pushes. I’m sick of being marginalised in society because of an out dated, unreasonable belief. Our law is secular due to our constitution for a reason and I’m simply reminding Father Frank that this so, I am hoping with all my being that his religious bias will NOT poison the good work he’s doing by limiting the scope of the act he’s working on.
Whether he can or cannot marry is not the issue, the issue is whether he will do the socially right thing, or the religiously bias wrong.
Oh and singular cause? Give me a break- would I be on this site if I had a singular, small minded cause. Let’s keep this a mature discussion of legislation and social change and not a name calling frenzy Rita.
Brenda Smith | Posted on 13 October 2009, 01:35PM | Report comment
Father Brennan, my question is this: if one of yours; a close family member, a loved one was being persecuted i some way,-any way, would you move heaven and earth in whatevr way you could to rescue them? I know I would and there are so many people; children and adults out there who are suffering in one way or another. May God give you His wisdom in all your work and all your ways.
David Goodall | Posted on 13 October 2009, 12:52PM | Report comment
Dear Father Brennan,
Your enquiry and report have been very encouraging. My most immediate question is: How could a new Human Rights Act correct existig legislation, such as the wicked so-called änti-terrorist legislation passed by the Howard government giving authorities power to detauin indefinitely people whom they do not even suspect, and do so in absolute secrecy.
Yours sincerely
David Goodall
Rita Julie Schaffer | Posted on 13 October 2009, 12:13PM | Report comment
Hi Nathan Johnston,
in reply to your reference to ‘UDHR’s Article 16 which states everyone has the right to marry; obviously not gays.’
It is not at all fair on your part to put that question to Father Frank because Catholic priests are not permitted to marry. And so you are implying by your statement that he does not or will not fight for this right for gays??? Please respect Father Frank & do not waste his time with pushing your singular cause. If you have an ax to grind I suggest you take the matter up with the politicians & not with Father Frank who follows the teachings of the Catholic church. Furthermore, the Catholic church will never sanction the marriage of two same sex people.) Just like it didn’t allow Henry V111 to divorce his wives. Priests are denied the right to marry (for various reasons - & for reasons of brevity not appropriate to discuss here.)
Nathan Johnston | Posted on 13 October 2009, 11:38AM | Report comment
Also Frank. You’re a father in the Catholic Church? And you’re campaigning for Human Rights?
Do you think this is a contradiction in that the belief you’re involved with is so intent on denying people human rights such as the UDHR’s Article 16 which states everyone has the right to marry; obviously not gays.
Will the proposed act, or yourself try to change this and many other injustices?
Nathan Johnston | Posted on 13 October 2009, 11:34AM | Report comment
Frank, do you think that a Human Rights Act may give judges and magistrates TOO much power in their interpretations of it, and by the case law system, too much power on these inherent rights. Is the UN or the ICJ a better avenue to use to protect our rights on these grounds?
Virginia Stewart | Posted on 13 October 2009, 11:13AM | Report comment
Dear Father, From what I have read of the ACT Human Rights Act is is laid out roughly in alignment with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What would prevent our federal government from enacting one similar to address those key issues? After all Australia is an early signatory on the UDHR, but we don’t practice it in our country.
Jenny Leong | Posted on 13 October 2009, 09:39AM | Report comment
Thanks to everyone who has asked a question so far - great stuff! Just a couple of clarifications.
Unfortunately, Maryellen, we do not yet have a human rights act. The Committee made the recommendation that the Government adopt one, but we still need the Government to ACT ON IT! Which is why it is so important that we continue to engage and spread the word to our friends about the campaign.
In relation to Wendy’s comment about state and territory protections, the ACT has an Act and Victoria a Charter, but unfortunately neither of them include protection for all rights outlined in the human rights treaties. We need to ensure that a federal Human Rights Act includes civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.
Keep the questions coming! And be sure to share the link to the portal with your networks and friends via facebook and twitter: http://www.amnesty.org.au/yourhumanrights/comments/21815
jill keogh | Posted on 13 October 2009, 09:35AM | Report comment
Frank,
Thankyou for your work during the consultation process for the Human Rights Act.
An urgent area of consideration is that of accommodation for people with disabilities.A combination of John Howard’s changes to the Family Law Act and the demands of the real estate industry in providing eligibility for rental accommodation in the ‘free market’have combined to rob my mild-to- moderately disabled daughter of the shared custody of her four daughters accorded to her by the Family Court. (She had previously been the primary care-giver all the childrens’ lives,15 years). The changes to the custodial arrangement required her to move to another state away from her family support system.
While it is desirable that people with disabilities should have the right to bear children, their right to rear them must also be protected and supported.
The devastation suffered by my daughter and her children as a result of their separation is an ugly indictment on today’s society.