Bringing Rights Home: International Human Rights in Australia - Assignment Example

Reflective Journal Name Institution Tutor Date Topic 1. International Human Rights International human rights have been a controversial issue. There has been adoption of several human rights treaties, but most of the countries have failed to sign the treaties. Furthermore, even some of the countries that have signed the treaties still disagree on some human rights. At times, such disagreement leads to violence. There exist two positions taken in arguing about human right, this include cultural relativism and universalities. Cultural relativists argue that, human rights need to take account of various cultural differences while Universalists argue that human rights should apply to every individual regardless of the background or culture (Micheline, 2004). Controversies on human rights often lead to violence. Individuals are impacted negatively with the violence prompting them to move to unknown destinations. I believe the issue has been largely looked into by those in power and they have taken little steps in creating stability concerning international human rights. I also believe that individuals whose rights are violated are not likely to be serviced by the states. Avoidance of harm is one way of exploring the terrain between cultural relativism and universalities. When individuals from different cultural background realise that certain cultural practices leads to harm, then they have to suspend the moral neutrality of cultural relativism. I believe the issue is a human rights issue as framed by the United Nations. According to United Nations declaration, for human rights to be universal, then it is vital for the human rights to be attuned with cultural differences. Universal human rights need not take a fixed approach (Rengger, 2011). Culture and rights should complement one another. Incompatibility should not exist between individual rights and communal values. The step take by the United Nations to create harmony between communal and human rights sits well with me. I believe that, it is important for human rights to acquire authenticity by incorporating various cultural perspectives. Another appropriate response I can provide is that cultural relativism should be offered a crucial view rather than being given a legitimate priority. Individuals should also not be forced to accept cultures or traditions they are not willing to be part of and every state should be at the fore front in punishing individuals who force other people to accept other cultures. Rosalind Higgins who is a powerful judge claims that, he strongly believes in the universality of human rights. Every individual need the same things and need to practice their religion (Donnelly, 2010). Topic 2.Bringing Rights Home: International Human Rights in Australia There existed controversy between Toonen and Australian federal government. Mr Toonen asserted that the Tasmanian laws that were instituted to criminalise homosexual conduct between adults violated his privacy rights. I believe the issue was of great importance to Toonen and was largely overlooked by the Australian federal government. Human rights committee indeed found out that the Tasmanian laws violated Toonen’s privacy rights as described under article 17 of the ICCPR since the law constituted an arbitrary intrusion of his privacy rights. The Tasmanian laws were inconsistent with common attitudes in Australia. The findings of the committee were accepted by Keating Labour Government and called for legislation (Groves, 2001). I believe individuals affected by the laws are likely to be adequately catered for or serviced by the government. The human rights Act of 1994 (Cth) provided for a solution for any capricious interference with the privacy of sexual conduct between compliant adults. The commonwealth legislation was not consistent with the Tasmanian laws and rendered them invalid (Groves, 2001). This made Toonen to repeal the laws and found some positive response. The response by Australia was seen to be appealing by the committee. However, the new commonwealth legislation never created a general solution for violation of privacy rights. I believe there exist other response to the problem. Individual rights need to be respected. The government need to give every individual to explore their rights without any limitation. The government should not institute various laws which hinder individuals from excising their rights adequately. I believe the issue selected for the article is a human right issue as framed by the United Nations. Human right Act of 1994 provides for the respect of individuals right. I also feel that there exist several ideologies interfering with the solution to the problem. Most critiques of homosexuality argue that a man cannot make love with a fellow man and a woman cannot make love with a fellow woman. This is obvious fact and complete logic. Scientifically, females and males are needed for procreation. Two females or two males cannot reproduce. Such arguments about homosexuality hinder resolution to the already existing menace. I also believe that there are no other responses to the problem other than the human right response. TOPIC THREE. Right to life Right to life is based on the notion that human beings have the right to live. The right demands that human beings should not be killed by other individuals. There are several issues regarding right to live. One of the controversial issues is abortion. I believe Abortion is a controversial issue since it is not appropriate to deprive individuals of their life. Abortion leads to killing of infants leading to the violation of right to life. The issue is highly evident in the society and most individual are involved in performing abortion. The governments have attempted to institute certain measure to help curb abortion, but this has not been a success. There is high prevalence of abortion cases in several nations. I believe individuals who are mostly affected by the issue are the infants who do not receive service from the state and are not adequately catered for. This is because, once the infants have been aborted, they are deprived of their lives and cannot live any more. Thus the government is not able to cater for their deaths; some cases of abortion often go unreported. I believe there is more appropriate response to abortion than human right approach. From biblical point of view, abortion is a sin. This is because, children are considered to be gift from God. From the ten testaments, it is clear than one should not kill (Kanmony, 2010). Aborting a child is killing the child. Additionally, foetus often feels a lot of pain during abortion. Aborting a child is exposing the child to too much torture. It is inappropriate to abort a child. I believe abortion is a human right issues described by United Nation. United Nations uses right to life in its debate to help limit cases of abortion. Prenatal humans possess the same right to life from time of conception. Thus abortion is morally unacceptable. The United Nation Response to the issue sits well with me. I also believe that it is not in order for individuals to deprive other their right to live. Every individual has the right to live under the international human rights obligations. I also feel that there exist some philosophers interfering with the solution to the problem. One of the philosophers is Peter Singer who claims that, right to life depends on other conditions apart from membership of the species. He believes that life to live depends on the ability for individuals to plan and anticipate their future (Ross, 2008). Since infants are disabled people, aborting them does not constitute violation of their rights. He claims that some infants may suffer in life since the parents are not ready to take care of them and no one may desire to adopt them. There is no other response to the problem other than recommendation of human rights. Topic four. Prisoners’ Rights and the rights of those in Detention I believe there exist controversial issue about prisoner’s rights and the right of those in detention. Today, police stations act as focal points for investigating criminal activities. This situation is distinct from the point of common law as understood several years ago. The law give the police opportunity to conduct investigation against the suspect already in prison. It is evident that questioning prisoners already in custody bears inherent dangers. The prisoner’s liberty right is at stake since they can be held in custody longer than expected. Additionally interrogative techniques may infringe prisoner’s rights to be treated fairly and with humanity. I believe the issue is of great importance to the affected population. Prisoners need to be treated fairly and humanly, their right to liberty and fair hearing should not be infringed. However, I feel the issue has been overlooked by those in power. Prisoners are not given fair hearing and are not treated with humanity. Individuals whose rights have been infringed are likely not to be serviced by the state. Once prisoners have been tried unfairly, they are taken to custody for several years; the government takes no time to compensate such individuals. I also believe the issue is a human right issue as framed by United Kingdom. UN claim that no individual shall be subjected to inhuman or torture or excessive punishment. Additionally, every individual is entitled to trial and public hearing within a sound time by impartial and independent tribunal body instituted by law (Price and Morris, 2012). Thus prisoner’s rights should not be infringed. The response by United Nations about the issue sits well with me. The response calls for fair hearing of criminals and not infringing on their liberty rights. Investigations need to be conducted before prisoners are taken to custody. Investigation need to be conducted by independent body to avoid prejudice. The response can help uphold the right of prisoners and those in detention also believe there exist certain ideologies challenging the response. Critiques argue that suspects can interfere with investigation process when not kept in custody during investigation. They argue that suspects should be kept in prison during investigation. I believe there are other ways of resolving the issue other than human right response. A custody officer should ensure they have adequate evidence to charge the criminal with the offence and detain the suspect for reasonable time to avoid infringing on their rights. Additionally, if there is lack of evidence, the suspect should be released on bail to allow for more investigation. References Donnelly J. (2010). Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights. http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/PSPA/3040/02/Donnelly.pdf Groves, M (2001) International Law and Australian Prisoners 24(1) UNSW Law Journal 17. Journal of Human Rights, 3:3, 359-371, DOI: 10.1080/1475483042000224897 Kanmony, J. C. (2010). Human rights violation. New Delhi, India: Mittal Publications. Micheline Ishay (2004) What are human rights? Six historical controversies, Price, B. E., & Morris, J. C. (2012). Prison privatization: The many facets of a controversial industry. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger. Rengger, N (2011), ‘The World Turned Upside Down? Human Rights and International Relations after 25 Years’, International Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 5, pp. 1159–1178 Ross, S. D. (2008). Women's human rights: The international and comparative law casebook. Read More