Show
Human rights are an important part of our lives. In fact, they are so much a part of everyday living that we often take them for granted. Consider how often you drink clean water, eat food, go to school, say or write what you think, get treated by a doctor, practice a religion (or not), or expect to be treated fairly by others. All of these everyday activities depend on the adequate protection of your human rights, and the rights of others. Australia has a strong and proud record on human rights. However, that record is not perfect. Some people are denied their basic rights, because of their colour, their race, their sex, sexuality a disability or some other aspect of who they are. What human rights issues exist in Australia?When people in Australia think about human rights, we often focus on violations that happen in other countries. Human rights are seen in terms of problems such as political dictatorship, torture, or unlawful executions. Some groups in Australia are particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses. They include: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, asylum seekers, migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds, those living in poverty, people with a disability, and other groups. Click below to see some relevant statistics:  Human rights issues can potentially affect anyone. Some people might experience discrimination in the workplace because of their age, race or gender. Other people with different sexual orientations or gender identities may be bullied for how they express themselves or who they are attracted to. Children and young people can be subjected to violence in the playground or at home. No matter what a person's status in society, they or a family member may at some stage in their lives be affected by a violation of their human rights. In the following quote, the former Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Dodson, spoke of what human rights means in Australia for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. He used the term 'social justice', but he might just as easily have spoken of human rights generally: 'Social Justice is what faces you in the morning. It is awakening in a house with an adequate water supply, cooking facilities and sanitation. It is the ability to nourish your children and send them to school where their education not only equips them for employment but reinforces their knowledge and appreciation of their cultural inheritance. It is the prospect of genuine employment and good health: a life of choices and opportunity. A life free from discrimination.' Mick Dodson, Social Justice Commissioner (1993 - 1998) How are human rights protected in Australia? Everyone has the responsibility to respect the human rights of others. Within Australia, the Australian Government has particular responsibilities to ensure that human rights are protected. In order to ensure that the human rights standards contained in international treaties are observed and enforceable within Australia, the government must introduce them into domestic law. This process is known as ‘ratification’. Once international human rights standards are protected in national legislation, the Australian court system is able to ensure that they are protected and cannot be overruled by any state or territory legislation that contradicts the treaty State and territory governments also have a responsibility to fulfil Australia’s human rights responsibilities. The state-level governments have the power to make and administer many of the laws that are relevant to human rights, such as laws relating to justice, health and education issues. As a federation of states with a Westminster system of government, Australia's system of human rights protection has evolved according to its own unique history, and alongside the international human rights system, during the 100 years since Federation. Our system of human rights protection can be found in:
There are also a number of federal laws that exist to protect people from discrimination and breaches of human rights. They include: In addition to the efforts of the Australian Government, the Australian Human Rights Commission is responsible for overseeing and reporting on the protection of human rights in Australia.Find out more about the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission. What international human rights treaties has Australia signed up to? Australia has historically been an active participant in the development of international human rights standards. As new international standards have been developed, Australia has either endorsed non-binding human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or has signed and ratified binding legal instruments such as the international human rights treaties. Australia is a party to seven of the key human rights treaties: Australia has also ratified three of the mechanisms that give individuals the right to complain directly to United Nations bodies about violations of their rights.
Totalitarianism is a form of government that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. It does not permit individual freedom. Traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed, making people more willing to be merged into a single unified movement. Totalitarian states typically pursue a special goal to the exclusion of all others, with all resources directed toward its attainment, regardless of the cost. Learn about different types of political systems. Both forms of government discourage individual freedom of thought and action. Totalitarianism attempts to do this by asserting total control over the lives of its citizens, whereas authoritarianism prefers the blind submission of its citizens to authority. While totalitarian states tend to have a highly developed guiding ideology, authoritarian states usually do not. Totalitarian states suppress traditional social organizations, whereas authoritarian states will tolerate some social organizations based on traditional or special interests. Unlike totalitarian states, authoritarian states lack the power to mobilize the entire population in pursuit of national goals, and any actions undertaken by the state are usually within relatively predictable limits. Read more about authoritarianism. totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to characterize the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as “all within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.” By the beginning of World War II, totalitarian had become synonymous with absolute and oppressive single-party government. Other modern examples of totalitarian states include the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and North Korea under the Kim dynasty. Adolf Hitler In the broadest sense, totalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression. Historical examples of such centralized totalitarian rule include the Mauryan dynasty of India (c. 321–c. 185 bce), the Qin dynasty of China (221–207 bce), and the reign of Zulu chief Shaka (c. 1816–28). Nazi Germany (1933–45) and the Soviet Union during the Stalin era (1924–53) were the first examples of decentralized or popular totalitarianism, in which the state achieved overwhelming popular support for its leadership. That support was not spontaneous: its genesis depended on a charismatic leader, and it was made possible only by modern developments in communication and transportation. Joseph Stalin Totalitarianism is often distinguished from dictatorship, despotism, or tyranny by its supplanting of all political institutions with new ones and its sweeping away of all legal, social, and political traditions. The totalitarian state pursues some special goal, such as industrialization or conquest, to the exclusion of all others. All resources are directed toward its attainment, regardless of the cost. Whatever might further the goal is supported; whatever might foil the goal is rejected. This obsession spawns an ideology that explains everything in terms of the goal, rationalizing all obstacles that may arise and all forces that may contend with the state. The resulting popular support permits the state the widest latitude of action of any form of government. Any dissent is branded evil, and internal political differences are not permitted. Because pursuit of the goal is the only ideological foundation for the totalitarian state, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged. Under totalitarian rule, traditional social institutions and organizations are discouraged and suppressed. Thus, the social fabric is weakened and people become more amenable to absorption into a single, unified movement. Participation in approved public organizations is at first encouraged and then required. Old religious and social ties are supplanted by artificial ties to the state and its ideology. As pluralism and individualism diminish, most of the people embrace the totalitarian state’s ideology. The infinite diversity among individuals blurs, replaced by a mass conformity (or at least acquiescence) to the beliefs and behaviour sanctioned by the state. Large-scale organized violence becomes permissible and sometimes necessary under totalitarian rule, justified by the overriding commitment to the state ideology and pursuit of the state’s goal. In Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, whole classes of people, such as the Jews and the kulaks (wealthy peasant farmers) respectively, were singled out for persecution and extinction. In each case the persecuted were linked with some external enemy and blamed for the state’s troubles, and thereby public opinion was aroused against them and their fate at the hands of the military and police was condoned. Police operations within a totalitarian state often appear similar to those within a police state, but one important difference distinguishes them. In a police state, the police operate according to known and consistent procedures. In a totalitarian state, the police operate outside the constraints of laws and regulations, and their actions are purposefully unpredictable. Under Hitler and Stalin, uncertainty was interwoven into the affairs of the state. The German constitution of the Weimar Republic was never abrogated under Hitler, but an enabling act passed by the Reichstag in 1933 permitted him to amend the constitution at will, in effect nullifying it. The role of lawmaker became vested in one person. Similarly, Stalin provided a constitution for the Soviet Union in 1936 but never permitted it to become the framework of Soviet law. Instead, he was the final arbiter in the interpretation of Marxism–Leninism–Stalinism and changed his interpretations at will. Neither Hitler nor Stalin permitted change to become predictable, thus increasing the sense of terror among the people and repressing any dissent. Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now |
Which of the following terms does not always reflect a dictatorship?
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 menakung Inc.
