Professor Nolan didn't seem to give a real counterpoint to creating a federal Human Rights Act, so viewers of this report might have received only one side of the argument. Consider: Many Latin American countries have extensive human rights stipulations in their constitutions, yet their human rights protection is still relatively weak compared to Australia or the UK. Why is that the case? The reality is having laws titled "Human Rights" means very little when it comes to the country's ability to actually protect such rights. This is especially true when it comes to positive rights such as housing and healthcare (as opposed to negative rights which are prohibitions on what the government may do). If a government is unable to manage the country's economy, then simply having "housing rights" on the book will not magically create houses for people. On the other hand, if a government is corrupt, having a national Human Rights Act will give the federal government the pretext or excuse to meddle in state and local politics. For example, to use a bogus human rights claim to sabotage a private organization that challenges the federal government's leadership. Therefore, from the perspective of opponents to a national Human Rights Act, human rights is better protected through individual laws that are passed as the need arises, and they can be state laws rather than federal laws because each state has its own circumstances and challenges, which are better managed at the local level.
law upon rights do not work and invite to violate these rights. laws upon duties only work. but very few people have the mental tools to understand that. refering to the usa and france shows this lack as these countries are responsible for many wars and genocides across the world. ayala & yami, shamanes associate
The implied definition of rights here is incorrect. Socially agreed obligations such as housing and medical care are not rights. Bodily autonomy is a right, apparently an optional right in this country. Please be concise.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for FINALLY I have found a distinct conversation about Australia's human rights or lack thereof
Professor Nolan didn't seem to give a real counterpoint to creating a federal Human Rights Act, so viewers of this report might have received only one side of the argument.
Consider: Many Latin American countries have extensive human rights stipulations in their constitutions, yet their human rights protection is still relatively weak compared to Australia or the UK. Why is that the case?
The reality is having laws titled "Human Rights" means very little when it comes to the country's ability to actually protect such rights. This is especially true when it comes to positive rights such as housing and healthcare (as opposed to negative rights which are prohibitions on what the government may do). If a government is unable to manage the country's economy, then simply having "housing rights" on the book will not magically create houses for people.
On the other hand, if a government is corrupt, having a national Human Rights Act will give the federal government the pretext or excuse to meddle in state and local politics. For example, to use a bogus human rights claim to sabotage a private organization that challenges the federal government's leadership.
Therefore, from the perspective of opponents to a national Human Rights Act, human rights is better protected through individual laws that are passed as the need arises, and they can be state laws rather than federal laws because each state has its own circumstances and challenges, which are better managed at the local level.
law upon rights do not work and invite to violate these rights. laws upon duties only work. but very few people have the mental tools to understand that. refering to the usa and france shows this lack as these countries are responsible for many wars and genocides across the world. ayala & yami, shamanes associate
The implied definition of rights here is incorrect. Socially agreed obligations such as housing and medical care are not rights. Bodily autonomy is a right, apparently an optional right in this country. Please be concise.
I am leaving canada . Criminal reform wasn’t here . But Australia has stronger criminal victims laws
13 comments 10 have been deleted what does that tell you. No human rights on this channel. Oh by the way Australia 🇦🇺 does have human rights.