Frank answers your questions
On 14 October, Father Frank Brennan took questions from our supporters on his experiences as Chair of the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, which administered Australia's biggest ever public consultation. Questions were put forward by campaign coordinator Jenny Leong after Father Brennan's presentation at the Canberra Press Club.
Based on overwhelming public support, the Consultation Committee recommended that Australia adopt a national Human Rights Act.
You can see all the questions from our supporters at our Ask Frank a question page. Unfortunately we didn't have the time for all of the great questions asked! Here are the ones we were able to get to:
Video part 1
Jennifer: With a Human Rights Act will we end up with the dreadful situation in the USA where wily lawyers can get criminals off "on technical grounds"?
Pamela: What issues emerged that you found surprising, or did things go pretty much as you imagined?
Don: How do you propose to ensue that Indigenous rights to culture, land and language are upheld?
Video part 2
Jody: How were Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people, people with disabilities, with language needs, including deaf people given the opportunity to have their say?
Alice: How did listening to people face-to-face affect or change any of your original attitudes?
Video part 3
Brian: Why is a Human Rights Act superior to common law? Won’t an act go through years of judicial adversarial argy-bargy?
David: How could a new Human Rights Act correct existing legislation, like the so-called anti-terror laws?
Nathan: Do you think a Human Rights Act will give judges and magistrates TOO much power? Is the United Nations or the International Court of Justice a better avenue?
Comments
James | Posted on 2 November 2009, 03:37PM | Report comment
Elka, there were over 50 other people who submitted actual questions and who took the time to relate them to the topic at hand, which was the human rights consultation process and Frank Brennan’s involvement in it. I guess AI chose to focus on those.
Elka | Posted on 31 October 2009, 03:08PM | Report comment
Or even more simply still, Amnesty could have read the comment and asked Mr. Frank “What are your views on this?” No?
Elka | Posted on 31 October 2009, 02:59PM | Report comment
AI writes that they didn’t ask Nick’s question because they didn’t consider there to be a question inherent in Nick’s quote? Really? Perhaps AI could have asked Mister Frank “what are your thoughts about this as a human rights issue?” i.e. Mr Frank’s thoughts regarding Nick’s concerns re: the way Electro-convulsive therapy is forced on Australian patients against their will and without legal representation provided (their human right) to challenge these kinds of legal orders. But who are we kidding? Amnesty simply didn’t want to ask the question.
James | Posted on 27 October 2009, 10:04AM | Report comment
Elka, while there is undoubtedly a strong argument in the paragraph you have quoted, there in fact is no question posed for us to ask.
Elka | Posted on 24 October 2009, 05:58PM | Report comment
More important was Nick N.‘s question: “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.”