Human rights academics call for expansion of human rights

I’m shat off that my right to stick my groceries in a plastic bag is about to be violated.

Massive, masive wankage.

absharp said :

Perhaps we should seek to have the right to a decent footpath enshrined in the charter of rights. Might be the only way to get something done about it.

Get a sternly worded memo written you mean.

Economists traditionally talk about the trade off between guns and butter, as the ways a theoretical economy can commit its resources.

In the ACT, we have a trade off between navel gazing over a human rights charter, and action to improve basic services.

The state of basic infrastructure (footpaths, street-lighting, etc) is appalling, and yet improvements in those areas are neglected and instead we have self-important charters of rights, etc.

Perhaps we should seek to have the right to a decent footpath enshrined in the charter of rights. Might be the only way to get something done about it.

Fabian Socialism here we come.

Berlin Wall is down Hillary. Capitalism won.

PM said :

Personally I’m against the notion that human rights should be codified in law as it restricts the development of what is considered a human right

When the United States was assembling its Bill of Rights, there was a significant oppositional faction whose argument ran along those lines. (the Georgia Delegation maybe…?).
It was “If we agree to a limited list of rights today, then politicians or the courts can in future use that same list against citizens under unforseen circumstances, saying ‘No, you do not have now, _nor ever had_ these right you claim today, they are not listed here.’“.
IE: “No parking on Weekdays” logic.

What a joke. An absolute Academic wank.

How about developing a Charter of Responsibilities. The ACT Human Rights Commission has cost Millions of dollars and not added one skerrick of benefit to 99.9% of the ACT population.

hear hear!! Bravo that person…

What a joke. An absolute Academic wank.

How about developing a Charter of Responsibilities. The ACT Human Rights Commission has cost Millions of dollars and not added one skerrick of benefit to 99.9% of the ACT population.

Personally I’m against the notion that human rights should be codified in law as it restricts the development of what is considered a human right and provides a shield behind which unscrupulous governments and bureaucrats may hide…

however…

if we are to have a Human Rights Act, this current version is seriously flawed in that it only takes a narrow approach. For example, property is not considered a right, so it will always lose out to the codified human rights. That is, outcomes are skewed in favour of some rights at the expense of others; when that is required, I’d prefer case by case assessments.

Dear Professor Charlesworth,

Can you give an example of someone who is not a criminal benifiting from ACT human rights legislation?

If we assume that taking some one’s life is the highest human rights infringement how has ACT human rights dealt with:-

1) The death of Clea Rose.

2) The death of the psychologist in the “human rights friendly” corrective services van.

3) The death of the family of 3 the legal system let Mully out to dispatch.

4) The death of patients in a stuffed health system (see MyHospital),

5) The death of 4 people in the 2003 firestorm managed by Emergency Services Minister Jon Stanhope.

6) Is a lot of your research funding generated by human rights research?

7) What does Helen Watchirs do for her $ hundreds of thousands.

Looking forward to hearing an academic justification for the loss of life unnesercarily in the “human rights friendly ACT. (“Compensating criminals for extinguishing life”)

I would be fascinated to get some