Post World War Two fear spread among many countries. Organisations such as The United Nations established to prevent further wars. Declarations such as The deceleration of Human Rights was created in hopes of a peaceful world. However peace was not achieved and Human rights were not followed through for everyone. Aboriginal people post WWII did not have the rights and freedoms that other Australian people had.
I still haven’t heard any answers that convince me that it couldn’t have been done differently” (RCP,2006, Crimes in New Orleans Section). Terrance made a really good point supporting the needs of others and emphasized the idea of how the government made a lot of mistakes of not risking their chances to help out others who are in need. In the documentary, the government represented himself as a powerless and useless soul who had no authority to set a safe and protection policy for the citizens of new
The Exclusionary rule in the United States constitutional law simply states that any evidence taken from people with forced, shall not be allowed in court. Any evidence taken in an illegal search and seizure may not be used in court. The United State Supreme Court in conjunction with maintain the sole of the Constitution uses a combination of the fourth, fifth, sixth and even the fourteenth amendment to keep true the heart of “good faith" and the “fruit of the poisonous tree" or the exclusionary rule (Teacher, 2013). It will be prudent to understand these amendments, to how apply them. The Fourth Amendment main intentional creation to protect citizens from illegal searches and seizures.
The Constitution of the United States is the concrete platform that the nation is built upon which contains fundamental principles in which our nation is governed by. However, much of the Constitution is very ambiguous which leads to controversy in the court room. For example, the Eighth Amendment which states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Baltzell). The first part of the Eighth Amendment protects accused citizens of the United States from unreasonable and extreme amounts of bail that would prevent them from being released from pretrial containment and it also limits the amount of a fine that can be given to a convicted person (8th Amendment)(Kurt). The
This type of government has remained up to this day. The reason why some Australians say that we should become a republic is because they believe that we have become independent as a country and that we deserve to own our own name, instead of being another part of Britain. Some say we should delay becoming a republic until the Queen dies or retires, or the global financial crisis is over, or until all the other important issues facing Australia have been dealt with. As we all know, tomorrow never comes. An Australian Republic is about us — not the Queen, not Prince Charles or the world economy.
In the last election, controversial Melbourne Radio Commentator Derryn Hunch, an outspoken critic of Compulsory Voting, was elected as Senator of Victoria. He has famously never voted and has vowed to introduce legislation to scrap Compulsory Voting in Australia. His election into the Senate has raised the question of whether Compulsory Voting promotes Democracy or surprises the Freedom of Individuals. Critics of Compulsory Voting argue that Voting is a Civic Right, rather than a Civic Duty. This means that while citizens can exercise their voting rights, they should not be obliged to if they believe it undermine their other rights such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.
I disagree with Hammurabi’s code because most laws were to cruel and targeted certain people. Although the code sculpted the culture in 1797 BC, the code would have no chance of surviving in any modern country to this day due to the harsh punishments received from breaking the laws. According to Hammurabi, he stated “...the strong might not inquire the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I set up these my precious words...etc” (Doc B). Although I do not agree with Hammurabi’s code, I do believe that he was trying to create and maintain a healthy and safe environment for his people by trying to prevent crime with such a harsh set of laws. However, the consequences for not abiding these laws were too harsh.
Originally, it was called the ‘Foundation Day’ for the land but in 1935, was ‘promoted’ to Australia Day, a day for national unity. However, it didn’t make things much different because the very problematic reasonings remained and ultimately, Australia 's sincere identity still has yet to be seen. Firsty, the use of the celebration will continue to the criticism of being based on a race unless changed to a just substitution. Next, the Australian spirit isn’t truly upholded on this date because of the poor basis that branches out from the past and anyways, many citizens should have no gripe with changing the time and day as it’s not of much interest to be honest. ANZAC Day is not appropriate for the matter and falls under the lists of unfortunate commemorations too.
Maria Jimenez is an organizer for a civil rights which helps immigrant workers. In her article “Border Enforcement Has Caused Migrants ' Deaths” she discusses how border patrol has violated human rights and killed immigrants. Also, the United States has failed to take action on human rights issues to focus on national security measures. Jimenez explains “The United States had not complied with international and human rights law acknowledging the principle of good faith, the abuse-of-rights principle and the human right to life.” (Jimenez 2011) This is significant because the failure and the lack to comply with international law and human rights speaks volumes about how a secure border has become more important than human rights. In reality, opponents for the wall take into account that a border wall has caused a violation of human rights and the U.S. government is too concerned with defensive measures and enforcement.
There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.
By allowing euthanasia into our country we are defying these basic rights. Australia should not regulate euthanasia. It is by no means a solution to human suffering and only disrupts the normal pattern of life and leads towards creating a more violent and abusive society. Life is a gift and not a choice, and practices such as euthanasia violate this vital concept of human society. If euthanasia is a threat to one person in this country it is a threat to us all.
This Act had claimed to extinguish any rights and interests that the Meriam people may have had before its enactment. However in 1998, the High Court decided by a majority that the Queensland Declatory Act was inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act and therefore was
It does not make sense in the ways the Government excludes one race and ethnicity and yet employs new laws and legislation to protect another. To me, the White Australian Policy was the exclusion of Indigenous Australians and not actually the races outside of Australia.
Imagine our country — a multicultural haven for immigrants seeking refuge — completely bare of asylum seekers. Imagine a country without a varying array of culture, without acceptance of each and every race, without knowledge and appreciation for the arts, ideas, social behaviour, and so forth of other cultures. This concept which would lacerate the deep foundations of which this country is built upon and develop consequences that politicians and citizens have not foreseen. Without the aforementioned multitude of cultural components, the enrichment of this country would be slim. Along with casting aside the culture immigrants bring into Australia, furthermore political and economic dilemmas materialise.
The real purpose of the referendum was to make two changes to the Australian Constitution. These changes enabled the Commonwealth Government to: a) make laws for all of the Australian people by amending s51of the Constitution, (previously people of 'the Aboriginal race in any State ' were excluded). b) take account of Aboriginal people in determining the population of Australia by repealing s127 of the Constitution (formerly, Indigenous people had been haphazardly included in the census but not counted for the purposes of Commonwealth funding grants to the states or territories. From 1967, Indigenous people were counted in the census and included in base figures for Commonwealth funding granted to the states and territories on a per capita