Many contemporary concepts of human rights have their origins in the concept of "Natural Law" that developed in the "Age of Enlightenment". While historic documents such as England's "Magna Carta", France's "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen", the United States' "Bill of Rights", and the Russian Revolution's "Declaration of the Rights of the People of Russia" all outline basic human rights, the concept of human rights as binding, universal principles backed by legal enforcement is generally acknowledged to have come into existence with the formation of the United Nations and the signing of the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" in 1948. Although it is based exclusively on European (including the US) principles of human rights, the Universal Declaration is widely considered the foundation of international human rights law and, together with the two Covenants, makes up the "International Bill of Rights".
The state is considered the primary agency responsible for the enforcement of the rights outlined in the International Bill of Rights. Individuals who believe that their rights have been violated may presumably seek redress by bringing their cases before the state for adjudication. This becomes somewhat problematic, however, when the state itself is the party accused of violating individual human rights. To resolve this, international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court were established. The rulings of these tribunals are ostensibly enforced by the member states of the United Nations. The United States government (both Republican and Democrat), however, frequently disregards the rulings of these tribunals when they conflict with its own interests, and does not formally recognize the jurisdiction of either the ICJ or the ICC. In the absence of any compulsion to submit to international law, the US government and its client regimes (such as Israel) frequently violate the terms of the Universal Declaration and various other international agreements in foreign and domestic policies with total impunity. This has created an unfortunate situation where international law is frequently employed as a cover for US military aggression, which has undermined much of the world's support and respect for international law.
The concept of legally enforceable human rights could be considered a component of social justice, which is the application of certain standards of justice at a societal scale. The fight for a living wage is one of the most widely known and longest-running examples of the struggle for social justice, and offers a useful example of the relationship between human rights and social justice. Unlike human rights legislation, advances in social justice are more readily identified with genuine mass movements and grassroots struggles. In the United States, for example, the widespread popular fight for women's and black people's civil rights of the 1960s and 70s is widely regarded as the primary force responsible for both these groups' advances toward genuine equality, despite efforts by liberals to attribute such advances to legislative initiatives (which in reality were merely responses to popular pressure) and by conservatives to deny that such advances are even necessary. While most advocates of social justice recognize the role of human rights as a minimum level of protection against injustice, many have noted that human rights as they are presently formulated are predominantly negative rights of the individual to be free from particular forms of tyranny or oppression. They have pointed out that, under a different sort of social and economic system that does not reduce virtually all human relationships to those of producers and consumers, there exists another set of positive rights that derive from individual participation in a more equitable and just society. This vision of another world is what drives many advocates of social justice to continue struggling against powerful forces of oppression in contemporary society.
The articles in this section document some of the contemporary struggles for social justice and some of the legislative gains that these struggles have made.
- 2438 reads
-
Unveiling the true face of Australian Human Rights Commission
As a New Zealand citizen travelling to Australia for recreation purposes at the end of 2008, I was discriminatively treated by way of totally unjustified intense interrogation and full search by an Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) officer upon passing through Australian Customs at Gold Coast Coolangatta Airport. Following no results from my complaint directly with the ACBPS, I also lodged a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission, which however arbitrarily rejected my complaint only based on 'the ACBPS has wide powers' by taking in all its arguments but none of mine, even ignore that the ACBPS went out of their way to lie about what indeed happened and provided contradictory statements. Believing wide powers doesn't justify power abuse and a human rights government agency shall protect the victim not the offender, I would like to expose the true nature of the Australian Human Rights Commission. May I hereby elaborate more on how the Australian Human Rights Commission becomes a shameful human rights violation defender?
The aforementioned incident with me being discriminatively treated occurred around 6PM, 29th November 2008. After landing and passing through the customs checkpoint, I was singled out out of over 100 passengers and pulled aside for baggage inspection officer Aisha Olesinski. She asked me customs related questions as per on the incoming passenger arrival card.
Upon examining my New Zealand passport, she escalated her questioning to interrogation with questions:
- Why are you coming to Australia;
- How long will you stay in Australia;
- Where about do you stay in Gold Coast;
- What's your itinerary like while in Australia;
- What will you do while you're here;
- Do you know anybody in Gold Coast;
- Whereabouts in New Zealand do you live;
- Do you have a job in New Zealand;
- Do you have a credit card;
- Why do you have 2 mobile phones.
During her questioning, she opened up and inspected all my baggage as well as my personal belongings with me, i.e. all pocket contents, wallet and mobile phones. She seemed content when she saw my credit card. I was held up by her for about 20 minutes and the delay caused me missing out on my shuttle transfer. Her 2 female colleagues were present throughout the incident. In addition, they failed to inform me of any rights at the scene, including my rights to not answer unreasonable questions and make a complaint on the spot.
Her interrogation was totally ungrounded, unnecessary and unjustified; as a lawful New Zealand citizen, I was already granted a Special Category Visa with the right to remain indefinitely in Australia and to work without restrictions (http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/travel-documents/new-zealand.htm#a), which serves as a direct proof that her intrusive interrogation offers no value or whatsoever to Australian Customs in my case as by law I am entitled to stay, work and live in Australia indefinitely regardless of whether I have a job, a credit card or know any Australians. The fact is where I live or having a job doesn't alter my admissibility and whatever my answers are make absolutely no difference whatsoever. New Zealand passport holders sharing the same express immigration clearance passageway as Australian citizens should not be ridiculed like this and such an interrogation was entirely discriminatively motivated.
I have since lodged a formal complaint to Australian Customs and their handling has been a sheer disappointment. Their final response from ACBPS National Manager, Airport Operations North, Ms. Gayle Brown dated 15 May, 2009 argues that it is part of their ‘risk management to prevent illegal movement of people across the border’, which I wouldn’t be surprised they exploit to fend off allegations of their power abusing behaviours which could not be justified or explained otherwise. It is evident that the only possible explanation for my mistreatment is because of my ‘different’ skin colour and discriminated against because of my race.
Following my complaint to Australian Human Rights Commission, ACBPS submitted their response accusing me being 'evasive and abrupt' when questioned by Olesinski in the vicinity of the baggage collection belt possibly because I was uncomfortable with being searched by a female officer, which led to the interrogation and full search.
That is an utter lie. To start with, I was not questioned by anyone next to the baggage carousel; in fact I never saw her until after my luggage was X-rayed, which was way past the carousel area. Secondly, I was not searched by the carousel either so how could I be 'uncomfortable with being searched by a female officer', which never happened? All in all, there was no pre-questioning or search leading to her interrogation and full search. I was referred to her by the X-ray scanner operator after he saw I responsibly flagged I carried with me fish oil capsules on my arrival card. There was no trigger prior otherwise. In addition, another letter from ACS contradictorily stated 'The officer involved has reported to me that she was able to address any possible concerns during this time, through the questions she asked and the answers that you gave. Thank you for your co-operation in this regard'. How could I be 'evasive and abrupt' as well as co-operative at the same time?
Surprisingly enough, Ms. Karen Toohey from the Australian Human Rights Commission rejected my claim quoting 'lacking in substance' and the case officer was requesting further ‘direct’ evidence despite the incident itself being self-evident, even after I explained that more than often racial discrimination occurs covertly, which can be adequately inferred from the facts. Her decision of terminating my complaint didn't at all take into account my arguments, including the cover-up attempts from ACS whilst took aboard all of theirs (primarily 'the ACS has wide powers') without any discretion. She even had a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘human rights’; she believed there was no human rights violation because ‘I could comply with the ACBPS’ inspection procedures’, other than looking into their fairness and reasonableness. The fact is human rights are irrelevant to a man’s compliance capability – one could comply with many things but that doesn’t make them right. The reasons (cannot be attached here so available upon request) illustrated in the Notice of Termination report have no logic principles behind thus make no sense other than simply stacks up all arguments from both sides before rushes to the decision at the end.
Feeling deeply depressed and traumatized was how I started my week long holiday in Gold Coast which was supposed to be relaxing and enjoyable. Its detrimental effect rippled through and my holiday was petty much ruined. I have also been struggling to leave this behind me and I just cannot. For countless times thereafter, I wake up in the middle of the nights and ask myself millions of times “Why me? Why did she racially discriminate me?’, to which the answers I do not know and probably nor will I ever find them out. I am constantly gripped by tears, anger, stress, frustration, depression and desperation even to this day. Days have never been so dark and my life is never the same after the incident.
I sincerely hope the insights of what the Australian Human Rights Commission be truly of interest to some of you as it has evidently become a protector of human rights violators and a suppressor of the victims. Please do not hesitate to get in contact should you require any further information(Vicious.AU.Human.Rights.Commission@gmail.com). Finally, I am thankful of you kindly taking time to listen.
Post new comment