 |  | ||||||||||
Medianet Release
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
© Australian Associated Press, 2017
| |||||||||||
Thursday, 22 June 2017
Legal profession sets out core principles and commitments on human rights as international spotlight shines on Australia
Wednesday, 21 June 2017
A wolf in sheep's clothing in the human rights fold?
“We resource strategic legal cases that are related, either directly or indirectly, to the protection and advancement of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. This includes cases relating to other rights and freedoms such as speech and association……The Human Rights Law Alliance is able to provide fully funded legal advocacy with respect to a limited number of highly strategic cases that have significant implications for fundamental freedoms. The purpose of our grant funding program is to ensure that no strategic case is under resourced on account of the victim’s inability to pay.” [Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), 10 September 2016]
Sounds legitimate, doesn’t it?
Well, this little group was established by the Australian Christian Lobby* as a “new initiative” and its interest in human rights appears to be restricted to defending the rights of ‘aggressively’ Christian individuals, those who are against abortion, anti-gay rights & same sex marriage and apparently would support a weakening of provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
In addition to aiding Christian individuals this group makes submissions to government.
What the HRLA states on its website in 2017 is that:
“We arrange good lawyers and funding for cases where people are in trouble with the law for living out their faith. By providing this practical help, we also set freedom-protecting legal precedents……The Human Rights Law Alliance produces resources for faith-based organisations to better protect their freedom.”
The HRLA is also of a mind that the Australian Human Rights Commission should be altered:
In a show of hypocrisy this pressure group also stated:
Being just twelve months old the AHRLA has few notches on its belt, but in the fetid far-right atmosphere of parliamentary corridors of power I don’t doubt it is getting a hearing.
This bears watching.
* Human Rights Law Alliance has been a registered business name since 25 May 2016. The managing director of the Human Rights Law Alliance since its inception is Martin Iles, former Chief of Staff at the Australian Christian Lobby. Donations made to this group are not tax deductable and “Because HRLA participates in some political activities, donations of over $13,000 may be subject to disclosure under Commonwealth laws.”
Trump still unwilling to let his 'Muslim Travel Ban' go
According to Lawfare on 13 June 2017 :
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed in part a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's revised travel ban issued by a federal district court in Hawaii v. Trump. The decision comes on the heels of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in IRAP v. Trump, which we summarized for Lawfare here. The government has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court…..
The court rests its holding on statutory limits to the President’s immigration powers. Although the court recognizes the President’s broad powers to control an alien’s entry to the country and to protect the nation, the court concludes that Trump exceeded the authority given him by Congress when he suspended the entry of 180 million nationals from six countries, suspended the entry of all refugees, and reduced the admission cap of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 because he did not make a sufficient finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The court also finds that the executive order is also incongruent with other INA provisions, including anti-discrimination provisions, and upheld the preliminary enjoining of most of Sections 2 and 6 of the order.
Donald Trump then issued this presidential memorandum while he awaits the response of the US Supreme Court.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 14, 2017
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
SUBJECT: Effective Date in Executive Order 13780
This memorandum provides guidance for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence in light of two preliminary injunctions that bar enforcement of certain provisions of Executive Order 13780, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Mar. 6, 2017). The preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and affirmed in substantial part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, bars enforcement of section 2(c) of the Executive Order. The portions of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii that were affirmed by the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bar enforcement of certain provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order.
Various provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order (as well as sections 3 and 12(c), which delineate the scope of the suspension contained in section 2(c)), refer to the Order's effective date. Section 14 of the Executive Order provides that the Order was effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017. Sections 2 and 6, however, were enjoined before that effective date, and the courts of appeals have affirmed the injunctions with respect to certain provisions of sections 2 and 6. As a result, under the terms of the Executive Order, the effective date of the enjoined provisions (as well as related provisions of sections 3 and 12(c)) is delayed or tolled until those injunctions are lifted or stayed.
In light of questions in litigation about the effective date of the enjoined provisions and in the interest of clarity, I hereby declare the effective date of each enjoined provision to be the date and time at which the referenced injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision. To the extent it is necessary, this memorandum should be construed to amend the Executive Order.
Because the injunctions have delayed the effective date of section 12(c), no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the effective date of section 2(c) shall be revoked pursuant to the Executive Order.
I hereby direct the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly begin implementation of each relevant provision of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order 72 hours after all applicable injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision, to ensure an orderly and proper implementation of those provisions. Prior to that time, consular officers may issue valid visas to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may admit, otherwise eligible aliens without regard to sections 2 and 6. If not otherwise revoked, visas and other travel documents issued during this period remain valid for travel as if they were issued prior to the effective date.
DONALD J. TRUMP
Tuesday, 20 June 2017
Should Derryn Hinch really be a senator?
THE PROPHETIC QUESTION IS POSED
The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 2016:
Should Derryn Hinch really be a senator?......
One of the outcomes of Saturday's federal election is that Victorians now have as one of their 12 representatives in the Senate a man who has over the past 30 years been to jail twice and fined $100,000 for breaching court orders, and who has been roundly criticised by the High Court for undermining the right of an accused person to a fair trial. We are talking about broadcaster Derryn Hinch.
While Hinch is not disqualified under the constitution from being a candidate for the Senate because he is not serving or waiting to serve a sentence for an offence under Commonwealth or state law punishable by a prison sentence of 12 months or more, the broader question is whether a person with Hinch's record is fit to hold the office of a legislator whose role is to ensure that laws are enforceable and that the rule of law is upheld?
THE ANSWER IS IN THE SENATOR'S FAILURE TO SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW
The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 June 2017:
it was Senator Hinch - twice jailed for contempt - who declared "the system is rotten".
"The three ministers were well within their rights to do what they did," he told Fairfax Media. "If I was the minister I would have told them to go jump. Courts are not inviolate."…
"I watched the performance yesterday and those guys up there in their black robes, it was like something out of Kafka," he said. "If that's contempt of court, I couldn't give a shit."
What was started by three Turnbull Government ministers allegedly working in unison to attack the judiciary now threatens to widen into something that may not be able to be easily contained.
US court gives President Trump another black eye and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe a partial win
Earth Justice, 14 June 2017:
Washington, D.C. —
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe won a significant victory today in its fight to protect the Tribe’s drinking water and ancestral lands from the Dakota Access pipeline.
A federal judge ruled that the federal permits authorizing the pipeline to cross the Missouri River just upstream of the Standing Rock reservation, which were hastily issued by the Trump administration just days after the inauguration, violated the law in certain critical respects.
In a 91-page decision, Judge James Boasberg wrote, “the Court agrees that [the Corps] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.” The Court did not determine whether pipeline operations should be shut off and has requested additional briefing on the subject and a status conference next week.
“This is a major victory for the Tribe and we commend the courts for upholding the law and doing the right thing,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II in a recent statement. “The previous administration painstakingly considered the impacts of this pipeline, and President Trump hastily dismissed these careful environmental considerations in favor of political and personal interests. We applaud the courts for protecting our laws and regulations from undue political influence and will ask the Court to shut down pipeline operations immediately.”
The Tribe’s inspiring and courageous fight has attracted international attention and drawn the support of hundreds of tribes around the nation.
The Tribe is represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, which filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for issuing a permit for the pipeline construction in violation of several environmental laws.
“This decision marks an important turning point. Until now, the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have been disregarded by the builders of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Trump administration—prompting a well-deserved global outcry,” said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman. “The federal courts have stepped in where our political systems have failed to protect the rights of Native communities.”
The Court ruled against the Tribe on several other issues, finding that the reversal allowing the pipeline complied with the law in some respects.
The $3.8 billion pipeline project, also known as Bakken Oil Pipeline, extends 1,168 miles across North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, crossing through communities, farms, tribal land, sensitive natural areas and wildlife habitat. The pipeline would carry up to 570,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois where it links with another pipeline that will transport the oil to terminals and refineries along the Gulf of Mexico.
Monday, 19 June 2017
Tony Abbott turns being your own worst enemy into an art form
Mainstream media looks at the recent antics of Anthony John Abbott, failed prime minster................
Financial Review, 15 June 2017:
Tony Abbott's prospects of recontesting his seat at the next election are under increasing threat with momentum building within the NSW Liberal Party to bump him off at preselection.
Sources on both sides of the factional fence in NSW say Mr Abbott's latest outbursts over energy policy, in which he is contradicting views he once espoused as well as trying torpedo policy reform, is exacerbating his situation.
"He's trying to make himself so unpopular that soon, no one's going to help him," said one member of the NSW Right.
"I'm not even sure the Right will unite to save him."
The search for a candidate for the seat of Warringah is advanced with about four names in the mix. Factional bosses plan to keep quiet for as long as possible any eventual choice out of fear they will be taken apart by Mr Abbott's allies on talkback radio.
The Guardian, 15 June 2017:
The former prime minister Tony Abbott said on radio station 2GB the decision to compensate those held in detention “looks like a windfall for people who unfairly took advantage of our nation’s generosity”.
Abbott said: “I don’t think this is the sort of case that should have even got to court, let alone resulted in this kind of a settlement.”
He also condemned the judges involved in the case, despite the settlement being negotiated between the government’s and plaintiff’s lawyers.
“We’ve got a judiciary that takes the side of the so-called victim rather than the side of common sense.”
The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June 2017:
Tony Abbott is the most high-profile backbencher in Australia, with regular appearances in newspapers, on radio and television and in contributions to Coalition party room debates.
As a former prime minister, he has made the most of the multiple media platforms available to him.
But there is one place the member for Warringah has remained largely silent: question time.
From his perch on the backbench, Mr Abbott has asked just one "Dorothy Dixer" question of a government minister in the current Parliament.
That one question was back on October 12, 2016, when Mr Abbott asked Trade Minister Steve Ciobo to "update the House on how the expanded Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement will support the government's plan for jobs and growth?"….
Other than Mr Abbott's one question, he has spoken just four times in the Parliament, on local matters related to his seat, on Papua New Guinea, and to give a personal explanation over his position on the Adler shotgun.
He has never given a speech on a government bill.
Business Insider, 16 June 2017:
In front of appalled colleagues, including a number of cabinet ministers, Abbott persisted with a stream of unpleasant abuse directed at Laundy. This was after the MP had responded to his first interjection by noting that, while he didn’t agree with anything Abbott said, he had politely listened to him put his position at great length and expected the same courtesy. According to a number of sources, Abbott then invited Laundy to “go f**k yourself”.
Australian Law Reform Commission recommends a National Plan to combat elder abuse
"4.40 Stakeholders reported many instances of abuse of people receiving aged care. These included reports of abuse by paid care workers and other residents of care homes, as well as by family members and/or appointed decision makers of care recipients. For example, Alzheimer’s Australia provided the following examples of physical and emotional abuse:
When working as a PCA [personal care assistant] in 2 high care units, I witnessed multiple, daily examples of residents who were unable to communicate being abused including: PCA telling resident to ‘die you f—ing old bitch!’ because she resisted being bed bathed. Hoist lifting was always done by one PCA on their own not 2 as per guidelines and time pressures meant PCAs often using considerable physical force to get resistive people into hoists; resident not secured in hoist dropped through and broke arm—died soon after; residents being slapped, forcibly restrained and force-fed or not fed at all; resident with no relatives never moved out of bed, frequently left alone for hours without attention; residents belongings being stolen and food brought in by relatives eaten by PCAs."
[Elder Abuse—A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 131), p.110]
In 2016 people 65 years of age and over comprised 15.3 per cent of the Australian population. This represents over 3.5 million older people, a figure the Australian Bureau of Statistics expects to grow to 9.6 million people by 2064.
The Turnbull Government needs to consider the recently published Australian Law Reform Commission report and act on its recommendations.
Australian Law Reform Commission, media release, 15 June 2017:
Elder Abuse—A National Legal Response
The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is delighted to be launching its Report, Elder Abuse—A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 131), on World Elder Abuse Awareness Day 2017.
The ALRC was asked to consider Commonwealth laws and legal frameworks and how they might better protect older persons from misuse or abuse, and safeguard their autonomy.
The Report includes 43 recommendations for law reform. The overall effect will be to safeguard older people from abuse and support their choices and wishes through:
* improved responses to elder abuse in residential aged care;
* enhanced employment screening of care workers;
* greater scrutiny regarding the use of restrictive practices in aged care;
* building trust and confidence in enduring documents as important advanced planning tools;
* protecting older people when ‘assets for care’ arrangements go wrong;
* banks and financial institutions protecting vulnerable customers from abuse;
better succession planning across the self-managed superannuation sector;
* adult safeguarding regimes protecting and supporting at-risk adults.
These outcomes should be further pursued through a National Plan to combat elder abuse and new empirical research into the prevalence of elder abuse.
ALRC President Professor Rosalind Croucher AM, Commissioner-in-charge of the inquiry, said, “In developing the recommendations in this Report, we have worked to balance the autonomy of older people with providing appropriate protections, respecting the choices that older persons make, but also safeguarding them from abuse.”
The Report represents the culmination of research and consultation over a 15-month period, during which the ALRC consulted with 117 stakeholders around the country, released two consultation documents, and received more than 450 submissions.
Professor Croucher said: “The ALRC is indebted to the broad range of individuals and organisations who have contributed to evidence base that informs its recommendations. In particular I thank the many individuals who generously shared with the ALRC personal stories of heartache and frustration, and of families torn apart by elder abuse. It is significant that the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis QC, has chosen to mark the launch of the Report today —with advocates and service providers —at the 2017 World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Forum.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
