Jump to content

Talk:Australian Human Rights Commission

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gender identity and sexuality

[edit]

I've created a new section "Gender identity and sexuality", and moved the sentence on this issue from the intro paragraph. I've also turned the Democrats press release into a reference. - Borofkin 09:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They may be honest bastards, but a more reliable source may be desirable. Andjam (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No merge due to lack of consensus

I propose that Sex Discrimination Commissioner be merged into the Australian Human Rights Commission as the content is substantially similar in nature; with the AHRC being the principal body of the the SDC is just one Commissioner. Rangasyd (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch - I do not support this proposal. If the Sex Discrimination Commissioner material were to be merged in, there would be an equal case for merging material on all of the other Commissioners. Then the article would be awfully long and complicated. Wikiain (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obscure IP Rant

[edit]

The Australian Human Rights Commission is a not so funny joke. Important as they are, "programs on school bullying and education for older Australians" are amongst the toy programs the HRC posit, whilst ignoring the real issues with the lack of Human Rights in Australia and pretending there are Human Rights in Australia.

The HREOC found in the Minogue case, (see Craig William John Minogue v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1998] FCA 1283 (12 October 1998):

“Under s.11(1)(f) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the "Act"), the Human Rights Commissioner (the "Commissioner") has authority to inquire into any act or practice that may be inconsistent with or contrary to any human right. Under the Act, `human rights' is strictly defined, and relates to specific international instruments to which Australia is committed and only deals with acts done by or practices of Commonwealth agencies.

Your circumstances are that you are a state prisoner incarcerated in a state prison. The Commissioner does not have any authority under the Act to conduct an inquiry into an act or practice of a state agency.

For this reason, I must decline your complaint pursuant to s 20(2)(a) of the Act, in that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to consider this complaint”.

Thus the HRC has no jurisdiction to investigate acts by Australian States. Since all Australian criminal prosecutions, even Federal matters are conducted under the laws and procedures of the State in which the offence occurred, the HRC has no jurisdiction to investigate anything really relevant to Human Rights in Australia.

Meanwhile, in Australia there is no right to bail, no right to Counsel, no right to speedy trial, no right to trial by jury and no right to defendant discovery in criminal proceedings.The High Court of Australia has frequently ruled that in Australia “no rights are absolute” and that all criminal proceedings should be governed by the variable, relative morality of the Roman Catholic Law and Doctrine of the Summum bonum which dictates that “the end justifies the means” or as the Roman Catholic High Court Justice Heydon found in Moti v The Queen [2011] HCA 50 (7 December 2011) “the accident of evil means should not disrupt the fulfilment of a just end’.

There are a lot of “accidents” in Australian justice simply because no Australian Court ever finds any deliberate wrong doing or malice by the police or prosecutorial forces, but mere inadvertent failures to comply with Rules that may be a little too prescriptive for the facts of the individual case; oversights that might be addressed by better training for the perpetrators of Australian justice, but which should never result in the vitiation of any criminal conviction, however corruptly it might otherwise have been obtained.

As for the ICCPR The Full Federal Court summarised the position in Minogue v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (includes corrigendum dated 19 February 1999) [1999] FCA 85 (12 February 1999)

35 “The provisions of an international treaty do not form part of Australian law merely because Australia is a party to the treaty and has ratified it. In consequence, the ICCPR does not of itself operate to give rights to or impose duties on members of the Australian community: see, e g Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292, at 305-306, 321, 348, 359-360; Victoria v Commonwealth (1996) 187 CLR 416, at 480-482; and Sinanovic v The Queen [1998] HCA 40; (1998) 154 ALR 702, at 707.

36 Although the HREOC Act was enacted to secure the fulfilment of Australia's obligations under the ICCPR, the Act does not make the provisions of the ICCPR directly enforceable in Australian courts. Nor have the provisions of the ICCPR upon which the appellant relies been given the force of law in Australia by any other statute. It is because the ICCPR does not give rise to rights or obligations enforceable under Australian law that it cannot give rise to a "matter" which constitutes a "justiciable controversy": see Re East; Ex parte Quoc Phu Nguyen [1998] HCA 73; (1998) 159 ALR 108 (H Ct), at 113. That is, the ICCPR cannot support the making of an order or declaration of the kind which the appellant seeks”.

Kangaroos are indigenous only to Australia. None of the Jurisprudentes should ever doubt where the term “Kangaroo Court” came from.

No other country needs Human Rights as badly as Australia. 121.218.231.189 (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious beliefs not protected

[edit]

This is just shocking, business think its covered if u have ever seen company policies or training videos. But you are free to discriminate on religious beliefs. Guess no point upsetting anyone by say no x religion in adds unless its a religious biased employment website.--Thelawlollol (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Controversy' section

[edit]

This page needs a 'controversy', 'Notable cases' or similar section. thinking particularity of the ongoing Queensland University of Technology computer room case per [1] 220 of Borg 13:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Human Rights Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Human Rights Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Human_Rights_Commission&oldid=1199200006"