(1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE WITHIN THE BORDERS OF EACH STATE.
ok
(2) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LEAVE ANY COUNTRY, INCLUDING HIS OWN, AND TO RETURN TO HIS COUNTRY. [fail] ~ david hicks
David Hicks has broken no Australian laws, has committed no offences on American soil, but has been detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for nearly five years in extreme conditions for allegedly committing terrorist offences in Afghanistan.
Right from the start of David's detention the Australian govt has metaphorically had him tried and convicted as a "bad person" deserving no sympathy. The Govt has expressed no concern for his predicament or for the state of his mental or physical health. They have relied on assurances from the U.S. Govt and military that all is well and David is being treated fairly. This is at odds with the opinions of David's U.S. military lawyer Major Michael Mori and David's father Terry Hicks, who have both campaigned tirelessly on behalf of David. They have grave concerns for David's health, mental and physical.
Despite this, PM John Howard, Foreign Minister Downer and A/G Ruddock continue the same line fed to them by the U.S. Govt and only express concern now for the delay in bringing Hicks to trial. This is completely in contrast to countries like the United Kingdom who made strong representations on behalf of their citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay and were successful in having them released.
The Australian Govt, including Attorney General Philip Ruddock, who still continues to wear his Amnesty International badge, should be ashamed of their inaction and callous indifference to the plight of David and stand condemned as accessories in the breach of David Hicks human rights. [Ruth Martin]
# Article 14. [fail]
(1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK AND TO ENJOY IN OTHER COUNTRIES ASYLUM FROM PERSECUTION.
clearly this is a right which has been 'criminalised' by the Oz govt. Not only have people been locked up for years at a time, but some have even been sent back to countries where they have beeen killed or imprisoned. The consequences of a policy that routinely fails refugees are far more serious than violations of international law. According to the Edmund Rice Centre report 'Deported to Danger II', the �Pacific Strategy� has clearly relegated numerous asylum-seekers to lives of persistent insecurity, danger and death; consequences that could have easily been prevented had their protection applications been processed in Australia. Any government professing a commitment to compassion, fairness and respect for human rights cannot, in all conscience, justify the continuation of such a policy.
- It is not an offence to enter Australia and seek asylum, even if this is done without permission. Australia imprisons innocent people who have asked for our help.
- Average number of unauthorised asylum seekers arriving in Australia between 1981 and 2001: 1000. Largest number in any one year: 4100. That number was reached 6 years after mandatory detention was introduced. Some deterrent!
- All detention centres have solitary confinement cells; confining people for days is not uncommon, people are routinely handcuffed. So-called �toilet privileges� are denied in some cells (even in Melbourne).
- Average percentage of the unauthorised asylum seekers found to have genuine claims for refugee status: 90%.
- AUSTRALIA�S DETENTION OF REFUGEES WOULD DISQUALIFY IT FOR MEMBERSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: OUR HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD FALLS BELOW THE EU�S ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM STANDARDS. source: J Burnside
(2) THIS RIGHT MAY NOT BE INVOKED IN THE CASE OF PROSECUTIONS GENUINELY ARISING FROM NON-POLITICAL CRIMES OR FROM ACTS CONTRARY TO THE PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
# Article 15. [fail]
(1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO A NATIONALITY.
(2) NO ONE SHALL BE ARBITRARILY DEPRIVED OF HIS NATIONALITY NOR DENIED THE RIGHT TO CHANGE HIS NATIONALITY.
Robert Jovicic, a 38 year old man that arrived in Australia as a two-year-old, had a history of committing burglary offences before the Howard Government revoked his permanent residency status and deported him. Jovicic who was born in France (to Serbian parents) suddenly found himself destitute and on the streets of Belgrade, the capital of Serbia Montenegro. He was effectively stateless at the behest of the Howard Government. Federal Minister of Immigration, Senator Amanda Vanstone, tritely suggested that Jovicic apply for Serbian citizenship. The Howard Government eventually allowed Jovicic to return to Australia after an apparent back-down on its ludicrous policy; but only after Jovicic had unduly suffered.
I believe that at present Robert is in Australia on a temporary visa which runs out in January. Who knows what his fate will be then? Senator Vanstone still insists that he should apply for Serbian citizenship. Understandably the Serbian authorities are not happy about this and feel that the Australian Govt, not Serbia, should take responsibility for Robert. There are a number of other cases similar to this where persons have spent most of their life in Australia, thought they were Australian citizens, but now face deportation or indefinite detention in Australia because they have no country to go to. (Ruth Martin)
# Article 16.
(1) MEN AND WOMEN OF FULL AGE, WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION DUE TO RACE, NATIONALITY OR RELIGION, HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY AND TO FOUND A FAMILY. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO EQUAL RIGHTS AS TO MARRIAGE, DURING MARRIAGE AND AT ITS DISSOLUTION.
(2) MARRIAGE SHALL BE ENTERED INTO ONLY WITH THE FREE AND FULL CONSENT OF THE INTENDING SPOUSES.
(3) THE FAMILY IS THE NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY AND IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION BY SOCIETY AND THE STATE.
The family is the fundamantal building block of society and nust be protected for humanity to function cohesively and harmoniously. Look what happens when relationaships break down - enormous social disruption and the huge costs to the community. Children with little or no parental guidance frequently have not been taught any values to hold or any princliples to adopt and consequently turn to all sorts of anti-social behaviour.
The I.R. laws are designed for the benefit of employers. That is a very short-sighted policy as the reduction of workers pay means that they have reduced disposeable income and so spend less and the economy experiences a contraction.
Furthermore the I.R laws attack not only the unions but also the family. The decrease in pay and increasing casualisation of the workforce results in the replacement of many fulltime jobs with part-time have a drastic effect. Now there is no security or regular income and consequently planning to marry and/or raise a family is placed in serious jeopardy. To make end meet many workers have to have two or three jobs which means less time to spend with their family, thereby creating another social problem. It mirrors the system the USA has implemented where 80 mill. out of 280 mill. live in poverty. Yet federal treasurer Costello has the unmitigated gall to exhort Australians to have larger families to benefit the community that he and his Governments shamelessly have destroyed.
(Rick Simpson)
# Article 17. [abused]
(1) EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY ALONE AS WELL AS IN ASSOCIATION WITH OTHERS.
This article should, like all others be read in conjuction with article 30, a caveat which recognises that with rights come responsibilities; NOTHING IN THIS DECLARATION MAY BE INTERPRETED AS IMPLYING FOR ANY STATE, GROUP OR PERSON ANY RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ANY ACTIVITY OR TO PERFORM ANY ACT AIMED AT THE DESTRUCTION OF ANY OF THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS SET FORTH HEREIN. So this right, although technically upheld, is wide open to abuse and is consistently abused by 'free' persons who just happen to be friends of the govt and/or big business. The abuse today is far-reaching whether monopolising the media, property-market, child-care, the stock-market, or the food-chain. The Howard govt has encouraged the abuse of market power through policies such as negative-gearing (housing) or the recent Media concentration laws. State Labor governments have followed the same corporatist model. It is unlikely that the original framers of the UDHR intended article 17 to be used as an excuse for the unlimited abuse of Market-power as this would infringe on the freedoms of others who preferred the use of free public institutions with the limiting of property to individual useage. Article 17 also raises other issues, such as the rights of corporations to dominate domestic and foreign policy, and the rights of shareholders against workers and citizens. However these issues cannot really be addressed today because economies are dependent on big business and whole countries can be held to ransom by the threat of capital-flight. This is in fact a potential for massive abuse of private power to trample on democracy, an abuse which the Howard government has no problem with. The corporatist mentality of Australian govt is the same as what was clearly expressed by the now deposed President of Thailand, Thaksin Sinawatra; "A government is a company, a company is a government.. they are the same thing." This explains why Australia voted against the consideration of a UN resolution expressing concern about "the impact of economic globalisation on the full enjoyment of international human rights. Australia was the only country to do so." (John C)
There has been a policy shift by the Government. Previously it helped small farmers by giving them substantial tariff protection and extensive tax rebates. Now family farms are being squeezed out by multinational agribusinesses which buy up family farms and form monopolies against which small farmers cannot compete.
Using negative gearing a legal entity can purchase a second property and claim expenses incurred as a tax deduction. That has a deletirious effect as it promotes property speculation and hence inflates real-estate prices. The result is that people are forced out of the market. The Herald-Sun reported earlier this year that %77 of Australians will never be able to own any realestate in their lifetime. (Rick Simpson)
(2) NO ONE SHALL BE ARBITRARILY DEPRIVED OF HIS PROPERTY.
Australia is the only Commonwealth country never to have entered into a treaty agreement with its indigenous peoples. This is reflected in a history marred by conflict over land use and the abuse of Indigenous human rights. Australia's Aboriginal people are today among the most disadvantaged in the world. Not only was this a theft of land, there was the theft of wages. 'Stolen wages' are yet to be fully addressed.