NO ONE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR TO CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.
Detention centres, Gmo Bay, AbuGraib, 'rendition'.
"We were persecuted by the communist regime in our own country where people lost their fundamental freedom, human rights, democratic rights and rule of law. We were forced to flee from China to come to Australia where people enjoy their fundamental freedom, human rights, democratic rights and rule of law. Like newly born babies, we are seeking protection here in a democracy. But due to the inadequacy of the detention policy in Australia, we were forced to lose our freedom again and may, at any moment, be deported back to China and face severe persecution again." ~ [statement by Chinese hunger striker in Villawood]
according to HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: Australia is a party to all major human rights treaties and yet reluctant to make them work at a domestic level. Australia is a party to rights of complaint to United Nations (UN) human rights bodies (Human Rights Committee, Race Discrimination Committee and Committee against Torture). Under the Howard Coalition government, Australia�s relationship with the UN human rights treaty bodies has declined, and the government has failed to comply with almost every decision of the Human Rights Committee.
The Human Rights Committee has handed down decisions in 44 claims concerning Australia. 12 of these complaints have been decided against Australia. Australia�s violations of human rights have been found to include:
� mistreatment of children�for example, in Bakhtiyari v Australia, the Human Rights Committee found that the detention of two children in immigration detention for two years and eight months violated the children�s rights;4
� inhumane treatment of prisoners�or example, in Cabal and Bertran v
Australia, the Human Rights Committee found that the detention of two prisoners in a triangular cage the size of a telephone booth was inhuman;5
� denial of the right to family life�for example, in Winata v Australia, the Human Rights Committee found that deportation of the parents of a 13-year-old child who was born in and had grown up in Australia constituted an interference with the right to family life;6
� undue trial delay�for example, in Rogerson v Australia, the Human
Rights Committee held that a two-year delay by the Northern Territory Court of Appeals to deliver its decision on a criminal contempt charge constituted undue delay.7
� In Young v Australia, a man applied for a war veteran�s dependent
pension. This claim was rejected because his partner of 38 years was another man. The Human Rights Committee found that this was a breach of ICCPR article 26, the right to non-discrimination.8
� Brough v Australia where a disabled young Aboriginal man was held in solitary confinement and deprived of clothing and blankets in a NSW adult prison; the Human Rights Committee found this constituted a violation of the right to humane treatment.9
� Most recently, D & E v Australia (UN Communication No. 1050/2002,
views adopted 25 July 2006) where the Human Rights Committee found that the �immigration detention� of an Iranian woman, together with her husband and two young children, for over three years was arbitrary' and in breach of Article 9 (1) of the ICCPR.
RENDITION - the US administration had been secretly transferring suspects into the custody of other states, states where brutality and dehumanisation feature prominently in interrogations. These suspects are known to the international human rights community as ghost detainees, because for all practical purposes they 'disappeared' off the face of the earth. Amnesty International has received consistent reports that the US authorities are operating a sinister network of covert flights, known as ghost flights, and secret prisons, known as black sites.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT [USA]
CONGRESS RUBBER STAMPS TORTURE AND OTHER ABUSES [AmnestyIntnl]
"By passing the Military Commissions Act, the United States Congress has, in effect, given its stamp of approval to human rights violations committed by the USA in the �war on terror�. This legislation leaves the USA squarely on the wrong side of international law, and has turned bad executive policy into bad domestic law. Amnesty International will campaign for repeal of this act and fully expects the constitutionality of this legislation to be challenged in the courts.
When asked in an interview what he thought of the Military Commissions Act [Gmo Bay.]
Geoffrey Robinson said; "Some of the changes are good but unfortunately most of them perpetuate what is referred to as a kangaroo court. I don't know how an Australian marsupial ever got associated with injustice... but there it is! The prosecuting authority is Mr Rumsfelds dept of defence, the judge and the jurors are all from Mr Rumsfelds dept of defence, the senior defence lawyer has to be an amerikan judge-advocate from the dept of def. The basis of a fair trial is an independent court. This is not an independent court. Around the world all the senior lawyers and politicians are saying that this will not pass muster. You must have an independent court."
[interviewer] "Philip Rudock seems to think it's OK."
G.R. "THE AUSTRALIAN ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT THE SORT OF PERSON THAT AUSTRALIAN AGS ONCE WERE. This is not an act that excludes evidence obtained by torture, it is admissable if the evidence is reliable, but in many views evidence under torture is never reliable. This is not what the Geneva conventions define as a fair trial because of course it is not independent of the prosecuting authority. The essential problem of the Bill is that it doesn't provide a fair trial.
# Article 6. [fail]
EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOGNITION EVERYWHERE AS A PERSON BEFORE THE LAW.
Obviously this is a right which the Military Commissions Act [USA] and 'rendition' (the network of secret prisons) attempt to circumvent. David Hicks, an Oz citizen will be tried by this 'kangaroo court' with the full support of the Oz Govt. It is also contravened in many of the anti-terrorist legislations passed by both the federal and state governments.
# Article 7. [fail]
ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW AND ARE ENTITLED WITHOUT ANY DISCRIMINATION TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. ALL ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL PROTECTION AGAINST ANY DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS DECLARATION AND AGAINST ANY INCITEMENT TO SUCH DISCRIMINATION.
John Von Doussa - Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) "The defining characteristic of a police state is that the police exercise power on behalf of the executive and the conduct of the police cannot be effectively challenged and regrettably that is exactly what these laws are proposing,"
Michelle Grattan [Age, October 16, 2005]
"It is outrageous that the Government wanted to leave so little time between the planned date of release and the passage of the anti-terrorist legislation, which it intends to get through Parliament before Christmas. That it has such scant regard for the processes of democratic discussion on a piece of legislation that tramples comprehensively on people's rights makes you worry about how it would use the law itself. The breadth of what can be done under the proposals is extraordinary. And so is the potential for innocents, or semi-innocents, to be caught up in the net."
Ian Barker QC
"Today we are on the edge of a slide into our own 21st century form of fascism: secret arrests, secret detention, secret interrogation by secret people. This will be the product of the anti terrorism bill - itself kept secret until the last minute to avoid scrutiny by those it will put at risk�the Australian public."
Labor MP and former justice minister Duncan Kerr
"We have moved an awfully long way to licensing the state control of the individual that we have condemned in totalitarian regimes.. the control orders invite comparisons with the way Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is detained."
Malcolm Fraser
"These are powers whose breadth and arbitrary nature, with lack of judicial oversight, should not exist in any democratic country... If we stand silent in the face of discrimination and in violation of the basic principles of humanity, then we betray our own principles and our way of life..."
Terry O�Gorman - Australian Council for Civil Liberties
"If you grant huge new increases in powers without any checks or any limitations or any oversight, then, by definition, it�s a recipe for a police state."