SUBSCRIBE: ru-vid.com 0:00 - Human Rights in Australia? 1:12 - International Treaties 3:50 - Bill of Rights 6:20 - "Express Rights" 7:42 - "Implied Rights" 8:45 - States Human Rights Charters"
may want to start breaking this one into the 1-3min segments youve already outlined, put them on your tiktok, & see how it goes. one per day for a week will be best, but all at once is fine. PhDs can be a hassle. sometimes they can eat into your tiktok time, i get that. -JC
Australia has been 'structured' to insure that Governments can do almost ANYTHING without having to protect the Australian Peoples Human Rights. Once inflicted the deed is done! We need the same Bill of Rights that Americans have - period.
We demand a bill of rights to protect us against politicians below the following argument Argument Against the Adequacy of Constitutional Protections for Individual Rights and Liberties in Australia The Australian Constitution, as it stands, does not provide a comprehensive framework for the protection of individual rights and liberties. This absence is not merely an oversight but a structural feature that effectively maintains political power over the populace through legislation. The limited explicit rights enshrined within the Constitution are narrow in scope and do not encompass the breadth of freedoms recognized in international human rights discourse. The argument that the High Court can imply rights from the Constitution’s text and structure is insufficient. These implied rights are not only limited but also subject to the interpretive whims of the judiciary, which can fluctuate with the composition of the Court. This creates an unstable and unpredictable foundation for the protection of rights. Moreover, the reliance on statutory law to protect rights places an inordinate amount of trust in the very body that holds legislative power-the Parliament. This arrangement allows politicians to define, limit, and even retract rights as they see fit, often influenced by the political climate rather than an unwavering commitment to individual liberties. The lack of a bill of rights or similar constitutional document that explicitly enumerates and protects a comprehensive set of individual rights and liberties means that the Australian people are at the mercy of their legislators. Without such a bill, there is no robust check on parliamentary power, leaving citizens vulnerable to the ebb and flow of political priorities and ideologies. In conclusion, the Australian Constitution’s failure to include a bill of personal rights effectively relinquishes individuals’ autonomy to the legislative agenda of politicians. This gap in the constitutional framework undermines the very principle of democracy, which is to empower the individual against the might of the state.
The implied right to political expression was essentially a means for the people (the voters) to discuss, debate and communicate with each other about concerns they have with the representatives they voted for. However, it does not stop defamation law suits on an individual expressing their views, it does not protect a person to express their views in a gathering such as in a venue where the venue owner can cancel the event, it does not stop a person from being removed from a public area expressing their points. In fact it has very little protection if a person or agency or government representative wishes to pursue legal grounds to halt or cancel the speeches or views. It is not Freedom of speech. This implied right is heavily dependent on a responsible government, representative and the tolerance of others. This means it can influenced by many factors, even by word of mouth or rumours (Hearsay about a certain person can lead to their expression being suppressed) Social media or even government officials as we have seen in recent defamation law suits. There is top down and bottom up approaches to squash anyone from speaking out or expressing their views. Not having a bill of rights can allow government to interpret and even restrict implied and expressed freedoms far more easily. Remember the Key words in all of this is "Responsible Government" from the top down and "Tolerance" from the bottom up.
Amen, brother. And you didn't even have to mention psychiatry. I learnt the hard way we have No Free Speech :) Furthermore, recent new laws suggest that is someone is so much as "suspected" of "criminality" they can have their possessions searched and confiscated, and data deleted/added/changed on their devices, so long as the police APPEALED to a judge for a warrant - before the confirmation even comes back. Therefore police can now search without a warrant by simply saying they suspect someone of "criminality" (vague, right?) for any arbitrary reason irrespective of the actual situation, context, and facts of the case. There's also a clause in the Mental Health Act 2007 added stating that "damage to one's/another's reputation" is grounds for indefinite involuntary psychiatric institionalisation. Meaning there need not even be a threat of violence to oneself or others. Personally I was "scheduled" for making a violent suggestion on FaceBook, clearly in the context of self-defense, but the context didn't matter; I was illegally investigated by NSW Police for what I understand to be several weeks, and eventually mental health workers (modern day inquisitors) came to my house to "psychiatrically evaluate me" (FIVE TIMES that week); I'll never forget the final one, Kathy, she flashed a printed page at me with the screenshot of my comment there, without any of the context...and then used this as grounds to "schedule" me because I "threatened someone with violence" (no, I did not.) I got their permission to capture all of this on audio tape, including proceeding interactions with police and hospital staff, so now at least in future I have some kind of legal precedent set should it ever happen again. :) They also told me if I go back, even once, I will be automatically diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (you need to be "manic" twice in your life for this arbitrary medical judgement to be imposed on you) - despite the fact that I've never been diagnosed with any mental disorder other than anxiety and depression. From that point on it would be full on Nurse Ratched mode engaged - I have no doubt I'd be constantly sedated by antipsychotic drugs (terrifying experience; they forced me to take olanzapine for the first time in my life and I could barely think or walk, missed my meals, and they swiftly had to halve the dose and I was soon after let go, but not before "Doctor Hand" established incorrectly that my "symptoms ceased upon taking the antipsychotic" - a blatant lie, and all the nurses knew it, in fact I was coerced to take it on threat of being further detained and I was otherwise avoiding taking it entirely because I deemed it unnecessary, it being the case I was presenting as perfectly sane. And I made a point out of it. Really pissed off the nurses. But they deserve it. The level of dehumanisation and fear they induce in you in these places is horrific. If I'm one day forced back I have no doubt I'll be subjected to torture only God knows. Truly horrific. I feel really bad for the "patients" who can't stand up for themselves. Trapped there. I'm a writer who wrote a short story about this experience and that short story is the only thing I wouldn't ever dare to publish, despite it being completely factual. Imagine how bad it was BEFORE the Mental Health Act... Yikes! The whole point is to segregate dissidents and other just people who are different, who have not comitted any crimes, away from the flock of sheep that constitute greater society, or as it's called in One Flew The Cuckoos' Nest, The Combine. *shudders*
Human rights in Australia? Our human rights were violated over and over in the past 3 years. What good is the Constitution or any treaties when they're not upheld as we've witnessed?
The Vienna law on treaties 1974 at section 27 I think it is holds them to put international law above local law, this then reneforces the iccpr and so on
If we don't have a bill of rights then why is the bill of rights 1688 still in force? Are you taking into account the Hague treaty of 1910 ? And the change in crowns changes the line of authority drawn apon.
Scrutiny, yeh, since when has an Australian Government ever sort to hold themselves to account let alone limit their ability to compel our population to do as they are told!
I don't think so there is constitutional protection or guarantee of human rights at all: even challenging alleged breaches of the Racial Discrimination Act 2019 in a judicial trial is not possible because access to justice is denied in the form of a 2017 amendment in the form of Sec 46 PO3A(a) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(cth). This kind of legislation is just a cosmetic thing and is not technically possible to be implemented :)
Could you please give a further explanation as to why the Briish Bill of Rights are not implied rights, particularly in view of, At the time of framing of the constitution, Australia was a member of the empire. The fact the constitution only exists as Act of British parliament. The Queen and her representative(Govonor General) role in relation to the Magna Carta treaty.of 1297.
The Bill of Rights 1688 is just an act of parliament. It can be repealed, amended or contradicted by subsequent acts of parliament. (Including the Australian Parliament) The Bill of Rights 1689 also was not a document of individual rights that ordinary people could invoke (this is an American invention that came later with their bill of rights). The Bill of Rights detailed the rights of Parliament (not the people), as during this time period there was a power struggle between the King and Parliament. Thus the Bill of Rights was Parliament’s declaration of power over the King. Implied rights in Australia are rights that are implied from the text and structure of the Australian Constitution. The High Court can only look to what the constitution itself says and nothing else.
_if referred by the AG to the comte_ . is that enough? &, as always, all reports and advice can be ignored. which is why you have to always be skeptical of arguments that end in "vote them out". especially when everything comes from kings and queens up until nearly the 90s. & the UK crown is still technically leaving us under a foreign head of state. technicality or not. id prefer to at least pretend my rights to be inalienable to me. -JC
Australia had it's Constitution introduced into place and power on the 1st of January, 1901, after being signed by Queen Victoria Herself about 6 months before. AND it cannot be changed, added to or subtracted from except by referendum. All it embraces is part of it, otherwise it was a useless order of the Queen, our Monarch. It covers what is written, and everything else is part of our freedoms. This cannot be taken away by some negligent politicians signing a foreign treaty without referendum approval. The United Nations and it's laws are not part of Australia'sobligations under Constitutional Law. They are just legal fiction put together by corporatized entities that want to control the whole world...the One World Government/New World Order which has not been approved by any Australian referendum. So most of your utterances will be based on the lie that the UN has some sort of power over us...which it does not. Our freedoms are from God and his law and order processes that became Common Law. That is the only law system we are obliged to follow as a Westminster Country.
Australia is the only common law country with neither a constitutional nor federal legislative bill of rights to protect its citizens, although there is ongoing debate in many of Australia's states. Australian government dictates our freedom by taking our fundamental freedoms and rights for granted, without a bill of rights the government could call for Volentueer service to fight in Ukraine or Taiwan if and when world war 3 starts, allying with United States and NATO would me automatic services as our army defence is not compatible and falls short if Australia is attacked and United States does not have enough to defend Australia. Australian people can't rely on other countries and we can't rely on our government for passing hidden laws without a referdium. The charter or Human rights can be change without the offical. Knowledge of Australians, not every Australian knows the laws and in schools it isn't Taught, the basic principles of human rights isn't enough to protect their citizens against government abuse and neglect of freedom of Speech, privacy and information. The government make decision without concent why does Australian government follow the British rule and United States. Australia needs to be independent. France, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, United States of Amercia, Philippines, India etc. Australian voting has been Limited, it will Continue for generations unless people stand up for their rights. Joining the UN was a mistake and not back by Australian people Rights and Protections Guaranteed in the Bill of Rights Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Freedom of religion. Freedom of assembly.
There is nothing in the Australian constitution or written in law, that protects the common citizens! The wording of everything relating to rights is misleading and only works as a basis for the courts to work from to show that you don't actually have any rights! If you use the examples, of religious freedom and property protection, these being among the few rights that are supposed to be rock solid, if people's rights in these are violated, and I'm sure most could probably recall just such a thing in the news from one time or another.... people still had to fight to have those rights implemented! A "right" is a given! It is automatically granted, and if denied, compensation is owed for the breach! BUT NO you have to lose more, go out of pocket and take it to court, where there's still no guarantee your "rights" will be upheld. The laws and all their complexity, are written in advantage of the "Crown" , state, government, authorities etc. We have NO RIGHTS! And that being true, saying that there are protections on our rights.... well that's just the most ridiculous notion ever!!!!!!
Yes swings both ways. Sadly the more i learn about Caucasian history the more I find they sell it won way but the intent is the opposite. I guess to our merit there must be enough of us standing up for true human rites to force this incidiouse behaviour by those in power.
