Kirby pushes for human rughts act

Kirby pushes for human rughts act

Former High Court justice Michael Kirby has called on the Government to follow through on its inquiry and implement a human rights act.
The recently completed Human Rights Consultation drew over 35,000 submissons, 85 percent of which endorsed the adoption of human rights legislation. The idea has many vocal critics, concerned that such an act would place too much power in the judiciary’s hands, or could undermine our very system of Parliament, or that the idea is unnecessary altogether.
“Sadly, Australians cannot claim that their parliamentary system works so perfectly that it does not occasionally need the stimulus of reminders that the law sometimes treats people, usually minorities, unjustly and unequally,” Kirby countered in a speech at Perth’s Murdoch University, before outlining the plights of Australia’s Aborigines, women and the gay and lesbian population.
“Criminal laws and much unequal treatment have marked the lives of gay citizens in Australia. I knew this because I have felt the pain of discrimination most of my life,” he told the crowd.
“Some of these integral laws have only recently been corrected…So why did they exist for so long?
“Previous governments did not treat the reforms seriously. Had a human rights law proclaimed citizens equal, it might have quickened the pace of reform. It might have stimulated Parliament to see the priority and injustice that others felt.
“In these and other instances, Australia’s laws have sometimes reflected the values of past generations. If we count every citizen as precious in Australia’s democracy, we need effective means to stimulate the correction of injustice and inequality where it is identified in the law. Otherwise the forces of inertia and indifference overwhelm the calls for action. This is what a human rights law can do.”

You May Also Like

4 responses to “Kirby pushes for human rughts act”

  1. Thanks Micheal Kirby! We really appreciate your hard work. You and your partner deserve a medal for all you have both done!

  2. If it wasn’t against what we both stand for, I’d marry Kirby and have his gaybies. Trufax.

    One need only look to – strangely – ex-PM John Howard for the best pro-Human Rights Charter argument. In his August 27, 2009 opinion piece in The Age, Howard said this:

    “If the US and Canadian experience is a guide, issues such as abortion and gay marriage would not be resolved by our elected representatives but the courts.

    “Comparing the Australian and Canadian approaches on gay marriage is illuminating. In Australia, the government which I led decided in 2004 that the Marriage Act should be amended to define marriage as a voluntary union for life between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, thus precluding the possibility of recognising same-sex marriages.

    “In Canada it was not so simple. In a series of decisions the courts had declared that prohibitions on gay marriage, enacted by some provinces, were contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Only by Parliament passing a law expressly overturning those decisions could the provincial prohibitions have been revived. This was a theoretical power only. In practice it was not a realistic option.

    “Thus it was not Parliament which expressed the will of the Canadian people on this sensitive social issue, it was the courts. Surely that was wrong. Irrespective of the views one might hold on the issue, don’t the people, through their elected representatives, and at all stages, have the right to decide those issues?”

    Yes, Mr Howard. The court had the right to overturn the parliament on an issue that would have involved denying the rights afforded to every human being, whether their voices are in the minority or not. Because it is not the loudest people that are the most deserving. It is, simply The People.

    In Australia, where parliament obeys the whims of the loudest voices even though they are not of the majority opinion, a Human Rights Charter is essential. Because our voices may not be loud enough, but we do count.