|
January 16, 2008
John Roskam has an op-ed on human rights in The Age. He says:
the charter [of Rights] prevents the Victorian Parliament, government departments and local councils from infringing on human rights. If people believe their rights have been affected, they have a numberof avenues open to them, including the ability to seek a declaration from the Supreme Court that their rights have been infringed. While the Supreme Court can't actually overturn a government decision, a declaration claiming that something the government has done is in breach of a person's human rights will have a powerful political impact. The government would be expected to respond, most likely by changing its decision.
He comments:
The argument from advocates for the charter is that no one should be opposed to protecting human rights. But the question is not about protecting human rights. Instead the question is how to protect those rights.The best way to protect human rights is through the democratic parliamentary process whereby elected representatives make decisions on behalf of the community. The system is far from perfect, and it sometimes fails. But it's better than the alternative. If a politician gets a decision wrong, they can be voted out at the next election. If a judge gets a decision wrong, the community is powerless.The charter effectively hands to judges the political authority that once belonged to members of parliament. For some people this isn't a problem — and indeed for some people this is the whole point of having a charter. According to them, politicians can't be trusted to protect human rights, but judges can be.
So how do you protect the minority from the majority? Say with bad surveilance laws directed at Arab-Australians.
|
