Critical Thinking and Self-Reflection - Assignment Example

Critical Thinking and Self-reflection Student’s name Professor’s name Course title Date Right to life I personally strongly belief that each and every human being has a right to life. This precious right is subject to protection by the state, through enacted laws (Tiensuu, 2015). In fact, no individual should be deprived of this right. I am totally against states that still practice the act of death penalty. However, I tend to be too lenient regarding the adoption of such laws, especially in instance where crimes committed are very serious. This should however be done or rather enforced according to the law and probably not contrary to the provisions of the prevention of the crime of genocide. This therefore means that the death penalty as a form of punishment for serious crimes should be enforced pursuant to a ruling or judgment of a competent court. However, I am against the opinion that a person sentenced to death to be accorded the right to seek for pardon on the death sentence. Thus, I strongly feel, jeopardizes equity and gives chance to the able in the society to get their way out. Regarding who to sentence to death, the law stipulates that the person to be sentenced to death should not be under the age of eighteen. Additionally, pregnant women are not sentenced to death. Right to life is an absolute right meaning that the state can never interfere with it (Branigan & Ramcharan, 2012). However, in my view and understanding, there are instances where the state needs to interfere with the right. For example, there is said to be no breach of an individual’s right to life if the person dies in cases or instances where a police uses justified, necessary force to prevent them from performing an unlawful act (Branigan & Ramcharan, 2012). Additionally, if the police make a lawful arrest, the act can’t be regarded as an act of breach of human rights. However, the force used should be proportionate, to mean that it should not be more than considered necessary to address the concerned problem. For instance, there is an instance where a certain social worker argued on the basis of human rights to obtain new residential accommodation on for a certain woman whose life was at stake because of threats from an ex-partner who was violent (David, 2013). The positive obligation on the state to protect a person’s life is not absolute. Due to limited resources, the state might not always be able to fulfill this obligation. This could mean, for example, that the state does not have to provide life-saving drugs to everyone in all circumstances. Human rights I interestingly learnt that unlike most other liberal democracies, Australia lacks a bill of rights to protect human rights. However, this does not necessarily mean that Australia completely lacks human rights acts. What makes Australia different from other liberal democracies is that Australia’s human rights are found in the constitution and other acts passed by the commonwealth parliament. The charter that relates to human rights and responsibilities in Australia is a fruit of international human rights law. Internationally ad under international law, Australia has an obligation to respect and protect besides fulfilling human rights (Webster, 2006). This however means that the Australian government is mandated under international law to take possible action to ensure that Australian citizens enjoy their rightful human rights. Additionally, the Australian government should desist from indulging in actions that breach people’s human rights. The issue of human rights is not new in Australia, as the government has been a party and has had human rights obligations for a quite a long time now. In fact, according to Grant (2013), the Australian government has been a party to the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights charter since 1980s. I strongly believe that the primary reason of having this charter was to ensure that Australian government authorities account for human right actions at all levels of government. In as much as research shows that Australia has been for long involved in human rights acts and have been in support of human right laws, i tend to believe that hasn’t been true. Besides, the fact that Australian contributed a great deal to the development of the international human rights treaties, the Australian implementation of the treaties has not been fully successful. In fact, to monitor the progress of the implementation of the treaties, the UN requires that Australia report to it periodically. The provision and recognition of the universal declaration of human rights is that the dignitary of humans is the source and firm foundation of freedom and justice in the whole world. Human rights is universal because it is meant to be enjoyed by all people globally, irrespective of race, sex or even color. However, the case in Australia isn’t so because human rights acts have for long been influenced by matters such as country of origin. For example, asylum seekers in Australia are imprisoned for very long periods of time and in circumstances which aren’t satisfactory because of detention policies which are mandatory (The Australian Collaboration, 2013). Children rights Children, like any other human being is bound to enjoy human rights (Bhabha, 2009). The key and main problem with children’s rights is the very definition of childhood whose definition across time and space is different. Children are also human beings and therefore entitled to enjoy human rights because there should be no relevance to age specifications. In Australia, Children have a right to be heard. This entails children having a voice and being involved in decision making processes. This particularly relates to involving children’s participation in decision making on issues that affect them. Besides, mechanisms on dispute resolutions relating to children should be well formulated and made available to children. Children also have the right to enjoy a life free of violence, forms of abuse and neglect. This is only possible if at national levels, commitments are set and achieved. Consequent achievement of these objectives is through adequate and proper resourcing and proper implementation of actions. Proactive encouragement and engagement on child issues is a measure that ensures that children’s lives are free from violence. Children should be provided with a safe environment and resilience should be built within children to ensure avoidance of children’s violence. Children’s right to opportunities that enable them thrive is paramount. The health and total wellbeing of children should be rightfully safeguarded, including rightful promotion and support of acts that enhance early intervention as well as prevention. Emphasis should be laid and focus directed on to the identification of children suffering from marginalization and other forms of vulnerabilities. Children have a right to engage freely like any other citizen (Daiute, 2008). However, the concept of engaged citizenship should be made clear through intensive educational programs, sensitization and raising of awareness. In my opinion, Children, ideally should be protected from working. However, the controversy is the acceptable meaning of who a child is. Children, in Australia have a right to work provided the kind of work they are involved in is decent. Decent in this respect means that the working condition should be conducive and favorable, that the child should derive satisfaction, that good relations should exist between the employer and the employee, besides also ensuring remuneration is good. Additionally, work decency implies that certain protectionisms should be met by the employer. For example, work that, it its very nature harms or possess risk to both the health and safety of the children should be abolished (Daiute, 2008). Torture and degrading treatment Torture occurs in cases where one person causes either physical or mental cruel suffering to another person, either as a form of punishment or to obtain some form of information from that person as an act of intimidation. I learnt that any humiliating treatment or undignified treatment of a person is referred to as a degrading treatment. However, the extent to which a treatment can be classified as degrading is dependent on a number of factors which include: the duration the treatment has been taking place, any effect caused, either physical or mental or both, sex and age involved as well as the health status of the victim. The concept of degrading treatment is based on the dignity principle, which value human beings (Hajjar, 2013). Any human being is protected by aw against torture, be it physical and mental. Additionally, any human being should not be subjected to any form of inhuman treatment or punishment. Besides protection from any form of torture or degrading treatment, any human being should be protected against deportation and instances where one is being sent to another country to charged criminally in that country. I have learned that any public authority should not inflict any form of unfair treatment to its citizen. On the contrary, the state should protect its citizen against any person inflicting any form of torture or degrading act. A citizen has an absolute right not to be tortured or treated in any inhumane way. The implication therefore is that the right should not have any form of limitation. For instance, any public authority should not launch a defense that they lack resources in cases where they torture or treat a human being in a degrading manner. For example, there is a case where a young man who was mentally ill was put in a residential care. When their parents paid him a visit in the care center, they noticed some bruises on their son’s body. As parents, they demanded an explanation from the center care managers, but all in vain. In fact, on the contrary, they were denied the privilege of visiting their son. The parents demanded that their son be treated in a humane way and not in a degrading manner. When reported to authorities, the ban was lifted and the bruising on the young man’s body was put under investigation. This is a clear demonstration of how human beings can be tortured and the entire act covered up (libadmin, 2010). Reference Bhabha, J. (2009). Arendt’s children: Do today’s migrant children have a right to have rights? Human Rights Quarterly, 31(2): 410–451. doi:10.1353/hrq.0.0072 Branigan, E., & Ramcharan, P. (2012). Human rights education in Australia: Reflections on the meaningful application of rights and values in practice. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 4(2): 233–252. doi:10.1093/jhuman/hus007 Daiute, C. (2008). The rights of children, the rights of nations: Developmental theory and the politics of children’s rights. Journal of Social Issues, 64(4): 701–723. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00585.x David. (2013, September 5). Right to life. Retrieved 10th Oct. 2016, from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/right-life Grant, K. (2013). The British Empire, international government, and human rights. History Compass, 11(8): 573–583. doi:10.1111/hic3.12069 Hajjar, L. (2013). Torture: sociology of violence and human rights. New York: Taylor & Francis. Libadmin. (2010, August 31). Article 3 no torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Retrieved October 10, 2016, from https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-3-no-torture-inhuman-or-degrading The Australian Collaboration. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/pdf/FactSheets/Human-rights-FactSheet.pdf Tiensuu, P. (2015). Whose right to what life? Assisted suicide and the right to life as a fundamental right. Human Rights Law Review, 15(2): 251–281. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngv006 Webster, E. (2006). Torture: A human rights perspective (review). Human Rights Quarterly, 28(2): 546–551. doi:10.1353/hrq.2006.0024   Read More