Justice Michael Kirby talks human rights

2008 is a landmark year in the global campaign to make human rights a reality for all people, everywhere in the world. 2008 marks 60 years since the birth of the human rights movement's guiding document the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Justice Michael Kirby, an Australian High Court judge, talks about what the declaration means to him.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• human rights
• amnesty international

[widgit007]

Good luck for your retirement Justice Kirby. You will be missed.

[katiegracemiloo]

The greatest dissenter of all time :) I love you, Kirby.

[andymusmaximus]

@Bobby3OOO Apologies for the miscommunication. I was using the US as an example that having a Bill of Rights will not necessarily improve the protection of human rights in Australia. And yet despite not having a codified bill of rights, we have still managed to protect them in some capacity. My argument never said Australia lacked examples of human rights contravention. Al'Kateeb is another prominent case. My arguments aren't flawed just because you disagree with them though. That's just glib

[Bobby3OOO]

@andymusmaximus

Your arguments are deeply flawed. You're clearly one of those Aussies who can point to US rights abuses -- which occur mostly because our take on free speech and defamation, as well as our competitive and vigilant news media -- make such occurrences widely known -- but deny your own problems.

Rights abuses in Australia seldom happen in rosy eastern suburbs to good Anglo-ockers -- and they're almost never covered in the papers. Kable. Fardon. Kruger... etc.

[Imonepercent]

HUH So much we white human rights.

My response to MR KIRBY that is he that wants we Australians to be flooded out with more non whites in our school/educate dept to counter racism and that we are racist towards boat ppl. Firstly kirby we are already flooded out so you really are saying I HATE WHITES and I want them gone. YOUR ANTI WHITE LOGIC IS DISGUSTING YOU ARE THE REAL HATER FOR THAT I ve been drawn to proudly support

DR DAVID DUKE

STORMFRONT for information!

[kickmeout1]

SICKEST CUNT!

[sparkaleshish]

@katiegracemiloo He disagree with many of his brother judges???

[anna4tory]

What a role model! I have the utmost respectfor you, Kirby.

[thegamblergambler]

@andymusmaximus How was the sovereignty of anglo saxon "settlers" ("settlers" debatable but moving on) upheld if terra nullius was found to be a LEGAL FICTION.Nothing was upheld for anglo-saxons within the High Court.You are correct that the HIgh Court found that the aboriginal/indigenous people's land rights are protected under British/English common law. It was the parliament that made discriminatory laws to water down the indigenous rights (a 1st in the western world).Know history correctly!

[andymusmaximus]

@andymusmaximus - And in Australia, statute legislation overrides common law, where Parliament has the power to create laws to that effect, and therefore, from a legal perspective, Mabo did not recognise Aboriginal sovereignty in that sense - whether that can be considered justice is a different story. But that is the reason for lack of Aboriginal sovereignty. Furthermore, any recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty would be problematic because each group recognises its own laws and traditions.

[andymusmaximus]

@andymusmaximus It is a legal paradox, if the High Court, as an entity capable of recognising which laws are invalid, were to recognise Aboriginal sovereignty over British, it would invalidate its own existence, thereby undermining the very decision it recognised in the first place (if it recognised Aboriginal sovereignty). The Mabo case even before Parliament sought to limit the applicability of Native Title, only recognised common law rights of Indigenous Australians with respect to property.

[andymusmaximus]

@thegamblergambler The High Court in the Mabo case you referred to has found that Native Title rights exist in relation to property rights of the 'Aborigines' in a common law sense (Aboriginal is actually an adjective. Aborigine is the noun... and to be politically correct it is Indigenous Australian). The sovereignty of anglo-saxon settlers in this country was upheld due to the dubious interpretation of terra nullius - as well as the interests of legal framework stability.