Talk:Human rights in Australia
|WikiProject Australia / Politics||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Human rights||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
far fetching claims
G’day Dmol, You are making far fetching claims without providing any evidence. Either you cite the HCA judgment, where it was decided that the Constitution of Australia contains implied rights or stop posting information, which is not true. The same applies to your claim regarding “numerous laws”. I challenge you to list these laws which protect Australians against HR violations by the Commonwealth Government, including by the black robed tyrants. Your claim that “Human rights in Australia are generally respected and recognised” must stand on some facts as well. Who respects your rights? Which law recognises them? Finally, please list the rights, which you think you have and let us know how they are protected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozjustwik (talk • contribs) 03:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you are looking for evidence of recognition of rights by the High Court, you could look at the Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation series of decisions in relation to the implied freedom of political communication, or the more recent decision in relation to the restriction of the franchise of prisoners, whose name escapes me at the moment.VeryRusty (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This seems... incomplete. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed it is. It's really just a shell. A serious article on this topic would (will) be quite long indeed. - Borofkin 01:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article seems good, however tables 5, 6, and 7 from the HREOC report seem unnecessary. It occupies too much space and is excessively detailed. Perhaps a more general statement would be more appropriate instead of listing statistics for individual diseases. Readers who want to view exact statistics can just follow the link to the report. Mr john luke (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged the intro for POV check. User Retty1 has repeatedly modified the long-standing sentence - "Human rights in Australia are generally respected by the government of Australia" and has changed it to "Human rights in Australia are generally respected by the government of Australia in respect of the white non indigenous population (Bolded for clarity).
This is clearly POV, changes the meaning of the entire introduction, and is an uncited claim not suited to an introduction.
- The repeated changes were introduced by Dmol in respect of an edit which had existed unchanged for some time before it came to the notice of Dmol. Dmol's edits on 9 April also included a deletion of the section on asylum (Sri Lanka and Afghanistan) - with no reason given. My subsequent edits also restored this section which had been removed without explanation. The opening sentence of the article, in proclaiming compliance with "human rights", was crudely bold - no attempt as preamble to engage with the concept of human rights, no evidence cited and no mention of the contested nature of human rights compliance. Whatever the observer's opinion on compliance the fact that it is vocally contested cannot be in dispute. Such a "fact" is not compatible with such a naive opening statement which makes no mention of the contested nature of human rights compliance. It is for example in respect of the suspension of consideration of asylum claims in respect of Sri Lanka and Afghanistan difficult to see how such a bold opening statement can be supported: "Human rights in Australia are generally respected by the government of Australia". Such a claim would, in the context of the facts, be alien to generally accepted understandings of compliance with "human rights" (both in procedural terms and in terms of outcome). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retty1 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think that the introduction as it stands is not good gramatically (yes I am aware of the irony, based on my sentence structure). I think the body of the article gives a number of examples, current and historical where Australia's Human rights are not ideal. I think a more nuanced introduction is in order, replacing at least the entire first sentence. Perhaps the following would at least be an improvement:
"The record of the Australian Government in relation to human rights is largely positive, with a number of exceptions. Australia's indigenous population particularly have been affected by government policy and continue to trail the wider population in a number of indicators." VeryRusty (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- That is a good compromise. Can I add that I don't for one moment think that Australia's record is perfect, (it certainly wasn't in the past) but could not allow such a dramatic change to the tone of the article to go unchallenged. Feel free to change the article to this intro, or maybe we could wait a few more days for more input. As I am one of the disagreeing parties, I'll refrain from editing for the moment. Thanks for your suggestion.
- The first sentence suggested by VeryRusty is undermined and contradicted by the intensity of the second sentence. The seond sentence is, moreover and with reservations, a more appropriate/accurate summary of the issues than the first. The most contentious sentence in the whole article would be the the first thirteeen words of the suggested opening sentence - "The record of the Australian Government in relation to human rights is largely positive..." Grammatical construction aside I do not see what is wrong with the existing content of the first sentence. It is politically tendentious and non neutral to suggest, let alone argue, that the human rights record is "positive" or "good". A modifier citing Australian Government policy initiatives attempting to redress the balance in human rights abuses might be appropriate. But it is hardly contentious or off the wall to suggest that there are serious problems with any statement that seeks to affirm the "general" human rights record of the Australian Government. Maybe a referenced summary debate on the professional legal/human rights literature would be more appropriate.
- Having looked at some of the other countries introductions there are those that try to provide an assesment (like ours), or just provide factual information. The second option is possible, for example, our lack of a bill of rights, but not preferential to me. Are there any other views? VeryRusty (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have amended the introduction to be entirely factual.VeryRusty (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)