Title : Why Human Rights Matter for Everyone Author : Sir Ronald Wilson AC KBE CMG QC Organisation : President, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity : Commission, Australia Keywords : United Nations, human rights, International Law, Western : Australia, Tasmania Abstract : In an opening address Sir Ronald Wilson, President of : the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity : Commission, considers the question- "Why Human Rights : matter for everyone". In affirming that human rights : are universal, indivisible and interdependent, he states : that they matter for everyone firstly because they are : derived from the very nature of a human being, and : secondly, because the imperative to understand and : accept that they matter for everyone is strongly : supported by international law. In treating this subject, : Sir Ronald expresses concern at the alarming signs of a : retreat by Australia from the observance of international : human rights standards. Citation : E Law - Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, : Vol 3, No 3, (September 1996) ISSN : 1321-8247 Filename : wilson.txt Ftp location : www.murdoch.edu.au/pub/elaw/issues/v3n3/ File size : 27K File type : Document File format : ASCII Contact : elaw-editors@central.murdoch.edu.au Copyright : E Law and author; details on the web page --------------------------------------------------------------------- Why Human Rights Matter for Everyone Sir Ronald Wilson AC KBE CMG QC President, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Australia 1. I want to start by being very direct. Sometimes lawyers don't always do that, but since the question is - the subject is a question, "Why Human Rights matter for Everyone", I'm going to answer it in the first thirty seconds, and I might of course leave the rostrum at that time, if you'd like me to. On the other hand, I'll stay for another twenty minutes or so and develop it a little more. But human rights matter for everyone firstly (nothing to do with international law) firstly because they are derived from the very nature of a human being, and secondly, because the imperative to understand and to accept that human rights matter for everyone is strongly supported by international law. And that's the outline of my theme. 2. Firstly, they are derived from the very nature of a human being. The present day imperative to grasp this truth has its origins in the insights of philosophers and theologians from the earliest of times - and jurists. While the term 'human rights' might not have been used, the concept is implicit in the perceptions of faith that speak of human beings as created in the image of God in terms of subject to the command to be neighbourly, to love your neighbour, of love as the fundamental law of life, of the unity of all humankind. The great codes, legal codes of Hamarabi and of Justinian, with their promulgation of justice as the constant and perpetual will to give every man (forgive the 'man', forgive the sexism of those times) - every man his due. And the contribution of lawyers, apart from these great codes, to an understanding of law as the handmaid of human rights, finds wonderful expression in the words of Cicero, that great Roman lawyer, statesman, a number of other things. He died in 46BC and he is reported to have said: "We have a natural propensity to love our fellow man, and this after all is the foundation of all law." That's a very intriguing statement and I hope that sometime during training or practice, every lawyer will have the opportunity to just reflect on what that means. "We have a natural propensity to love our fellow man, and this after all is the foundation of all law." - as a reflection that comes to us over twenty centuries. John Donne, coming nearer to us, the poet, the British poet of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries - you'll know his words very well - when he emphasised the essential relatedness of all humanity, so much so that when a person dies the whole community is diminished. You remember his words: "No man is an island" and then concluded with "Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." 3. Well then, let's come to the twentieth century and the operation of international law as it found expression during this century. The principles of the United Nations Charter and the consistent and repeated affirmations of the International Community in the latter half of this century undergird the imperative to which I've already referred. The Charter was adopted at a World Conference held in San Francisco in 1945. Intensive lobbying prior to and during the conference by a widely representative group, led mainly by churches and other religious groups, succeeded in strengthening the Charter from what the initial draft presented, significantly, particularly, in its expression of a concern for human rights. In the result, firstly the Preamble to the Charter expresses a determination, and I quote, "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". Article 1(3) recites that one of the chief purposes of the organisation shall be, and I quote, "to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion". And then Article 68, perhaps the most important of all. It required the Economic and Social Council "to establish a permanent Commission on Human Rights to promote respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms". And on the 10th of December 1948, the first fruits of that Article 68 were seen when the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its adoption was a triumph for Dr Frederick Nolde, a person whom I knew at that time because I was getting caught up in the international scene as early as 1948 and 1949. He was the director of the Churches Commission in Geneva on International Affairs and he was indefatigable in representing the insights of religious groups, not confined to the Christian churches. He constantly emphasized the principle that governments could not grant human rights. They could do no more than recognise the human rights which human beings by virtue of their being and destiny already possessed. And this principle is enshrined in the first Preamble to the Declaration, which begins "whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world", so on. The Declaration proceeds to affirm that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and are entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein without distinction of any kind, and again there's that recital, expanded this time: race, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth and finally, or other status. There can be no question that sexual orientation is properly included in that recital. It's intended to be exhaustive. The Declaration was proclaimed to be a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations to the end that every individual and every organ of society shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance. 4. Since these great affirmations of the international community in the forties, the subject of human rights has seldom been off the agenda of the United Nations and its parallel organisation, the International Labour Organisation. In 1966, after fourteen years of patient negotiation, hampered by the stresses of the Cold War, two covenants of great importance were adopted by the General Assembly. These were the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And since that time, attention has been given to the adoption of particular standards in relation to the rights of groups that were seen to be vulnerable. Thus we have conventions on the elimination of racial discrimination, of discrimination against women, and on the rights of the child. There's a convention against torture; it includes detailed standards on the rights of prisoners and detainees. There are declarations on the rights of people with disabilities and the mentally ill. There are international standards on refugees and the declaration on the elimination of religious intolerance. A draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is presently under discussion. This comprehensive record of achievement in standard setting in the UN over the past fifty years stands as a convincing testimony as to why human rights matter for everyone. It's a question of the inherent dignity belonging to every human being, simply and solely by virtue of his or her humanity. It's a question of equality of opportunity. It is a question of freedom, justice and peace for the whole world community. It is a question of international law and the obligations that Australia has assumed by its adoption and ratification of these instruments. The strength of this testimony is in no way diminished by the fact that when the UN was established, and in those early years the vision of universal human rights was affirmed, it was largely made up of western nations. Certainly, it was in no way as representative of the world community as it is today, but the repeated debates over the intervening years as the United Nations has trebled its membership, more than trebled its membership, so as to become truly representative of the whole world, has exposed the vision of 1945 to rigorous and continuing scrutiny. Yet that vision and its pursuit has emerged all the stronger for that vision. 5. A testing moment came in 1989-90 when the UN was debating a motion to condemn the manner of China's alleged suppression of democracy, culminating in the Tiananmen Square massacre. China relied strongly on Article 2, Subarticle 7 of the Charter which precludes the United Nations from intervening in matters which, and I quote, "are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". That was China's argument. It was rejected and the argument failed to deter the UN from expressing its concern over that incident. The stage was then set for a showdown on the issue of the scope of the UN's authority in human rights matters at the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993. I had the privilege of being there and could feel the very real anxiety, the tension that dominated that conference over those first few days, an anxiety as to whether it would be possible for the conference to maintain adherence to the principle that human rights are universal. Strong views were advanced by many developing nations that the right to development was an overriding human right and that national security concerns might in some circumstances be paramount to human rights. In the result, however, the conference came back to those words that had dominated the intervening decades and reaffirmed by consensus that human rights were universal, they were indivisible and they were interdependent. And within the context of this affirmation, it was acknowledged that the right to development was an important human right, although no more important than any other. 6. I believe the outcome of the World Conference emphasises firstly the importance of an integrated approach to human rights and equal opportunity and secondly, that the scrutiny of human rights issues by the world community is not to be confined by national boundaries. It's the right and responsibility of the world community to monitor the observance of human rights, regardless of the sensitivities of particular countries and resistance to intrusion into domestic ... so called intrusion ... into domestic affairs. We've seen an expression of this sensitivity in the response of some sections of the Australian community to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in relation to Tasmania's laws on consensual homosexual conduct between adults in private. The truth is that the promotion and the protection of human rights is no longer a duty owed only by the nation state to its own citizens, fundamental and the starting point as that is. It is also a duty owed to the international community. 7. Before leaving the international aspect, let me mention briefly two exciting events that have happened only in the last month, as if to give me something to talk about at this seminar. They both involved Australia. We were represented at the first by our Race Discrimination Commissioner, Zita Antonius, one of my colleagues in the Human Rights Commission. She went to Japan, representing the Commission as an Australian delegate. The theme was Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. Participating countries, apart from Japan and Australia, included Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, India, Thailand and Korea, and Zita's report when she came back said, among other things: "The participants unanimously affirmed that basic human rights are non-negotiable, that human rights are universal and indivisible, that human rights are a legitimate matter of international concern, to be promoted and protected in a balanced manner throughout the world by all available means." It's significant, ladies and gentlemen, that this happened in Japan, in our region, because the Asia-Pacific region has been the slowest of all regions to find it possible to establish regional and national bodies to advance the protection and promotion of human rights. Every other region around the world has its own agency so that you have the international level in the UN, you have the European Commission of Human Rights, you have the African Commission, the Latin American and the American. And it's so significant that these two conferences, the one I've mentioned and the one I'm coming to, are in our own region. Lawasia has been working for at least twenty years to advance a recognition of human rights and to see some kind of regional body established in this region, and it's very significant that this meeting in Japan made these affirmations and expressed the hope that there could be closer cooperation between the Asian nations. 8. And then, just from the 8th to the 10th of July in Darwin, Australia - my Commission - hosted a workshop of national human rights institutions from the Asia-Pacific. It was attended by the national institutions established in Australia, India, Indonesia and New Zealand. There's only one other country in the region that has a national human rights institution, that is the Philippines, and that has played a significant role in the past few years, but unfortunately it couldn't be represented because of internal problems. It's chairman retired earlier this year and I'm not sure what the other difficulties were. But, nevertheless, about a dozen other Asian nations that I won't stop to record attended as observers. They attended because they were interested in the establishment in their own country of a national human rights institution. My colleague, the Human Rights Commissioner, was responsible for running the workshop and he reported it was very successful, it reaffirmed (quote) "the commitment of participants to the universal and indivisible rights declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments, which recognise that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and are entitled to equal protection against any form of discrimination and abuse of power". And that's a very good introduction to our seminar today. They also resolved, these institutions, and I found these very significant. Firstly, to develop the mutual support, cooperation and joint activity of national institutions in the region and to respond to requests from other governments for assistance in the establishment in their countries of such an institution. And secondly, to respond promptly and effectively to request from other national institutions to investigate violations of the human rights of their nationals present in a country that has a national institution. That's an extraordinary decision to make at the first meeting of national institutions in this region - to open up each other's country to help from a neighbouring national institution with the freedom to investigate human rights violations in that country. The third decision was to establish an informal Asia-Pacific regional forum of national human rights institutions and to accept Australia's offer to service the forum for a period of up to three years. And the exciting thing about this was that this offer was made possible by Mr Downer, the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, undertaking to give us $75,000 a year for the next three years in order that we could service such a forum. The Human Rights Commission is desperately trying to maintain its other programmes, given a 15% cut in its funding, and to finish the national inquiry into the separation, of the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families and communities with our existing resources. But this is a most encouraging response from the government to the needs of a forum of continuing consultation between human rights institutions in this region, and we look forward enormously to the possibilities that are opened up by that. 9. I haven't left myself much time for the domestic scene, but as I've said, the rest of the programme will develop that. But let me just try and say a few words very quickly. The necessity for this seminar is an indication that there's no room for complacency about human rights in this country. The basis on which the Attorney-General, the then Attorney-General of the West Australian Government explained, the decision not to accept the recommendation of the Equal Opportunity Commission last December that legislation be enacted to protect West Australians from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation was quite outrageous. June Williams had published a discussion paper on the subject and invited a community response. There were something like 400 responses; more than 360 of them favoured the recommendation that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation be banished from Western Australia, and that's more than 90% of the responses. Less than 10% of the responses were opposed. Yet the Attorney-General's excuse for abandoning its clear responsibility to protect the human rights of an important and significant minority in Western Australia was to say that the issue was the subject of serious community division and the government had deferred action for the time being. The reality was that there was overwhelming support for the recommendation of the Equal Opportunity Commissioner and the outcome represented an abject failure of leadership on the part of the government, notwithstanding even that the only leadership required was to respond to community opinion. 10. I suppose this seminar might be presented, notwithstanding the wide range of distinguished speakers from across the nation, as one limited in its application and relevance to Tasmania and Western Australia, these being the two states that have yet to legislate to outlaw sexual orientation discrimination. But, ladies and gentlemen, it's far more significant in importance than that. I'm sure that people from the other states that have an interest in the development of human rights will recognise that all is not well anywhere in Australia in relation to sexual orientation discrimination, that the continuing level of violence that attends discrimination - this is what distinguishes this particular minority from many others that suffer discrimination - the continuing violence, the continuing vilification of this minority is of relevance to every part of Australia. And I would also add on the general issue that the refusal to recognise the rights of one section of the community diminishes the whole community. 11. There are alarming signs at the present time of a retreat by Australia from the observance of international human rights standards. In recent times I've been brought face to face with a level of continuing prejudice against migrant groups that I had thought we as a nation had grown out of. It doesn't have to take a dramatic turn like physical assault or the burning of mosques or synagogues to be objectionable. It's the petty, day to day humiliations and insults at the grass level of the community life that are the daily experience still of many Australians. In the area of aboriginal reconciliation, you may have seen the comments of my colleague, Mick Dodson, recently, expressing the view that since the last Federal election, there's been a marked deterioration in relationships, not confined to events at the national level. The deterioration is such as to engender a real anxiety for the future of the reconciliation process. There is the recent forecast - I hope it's not reliable - of significant cuts to the legal aid budget presently administered by Legal Aid Commissions around the states, and the figure of $120 million being taken out of legal aid in Australia was mentioned. That is going to increase the pressures on Australia's minorities enormously, because it's the people who are poor and impoverished that are most in need of legal aid, and it is they who will bear the brunt of the pain of this action if it takes place in the budget. My colleague, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, has written a very powerful submission to the current Senate inquiry into the industrial relations amending legislation. I understand that proposed legislation will remove the present United Nations human rights instruments that are presently annexed to the present legislation. Many of the ILO conventions that deal directly with the rights of workers were annexed to that present legislation and I understand the proposed bill will remove them. There is a retreat from the concept of equal pay as a likely outcome of those amendments. Hopefully, the Senate committee will make a strong report which will lead to changes when the bill is before the Parliament. My colleague, the Human Rights Commissioner, is battling the Immigration Department over the human rights of refugees and a retreat from some Australian international obligations in that regard. 12. What should I say in a word about political correctness? I can understand, ladies and gentlemen, the attack on so called political correctness, if it is intended as an attack on cant and hypocrisy or in defence of rational debate on issues of national importance, but free speech has never been a licence for the vilification of minorities, whether they be aborigines or ethnic Australians or people with disabilities or persons with a sexual orientation different from the majority. Some conservative commentators are not slow to jump on the bandwagon against so called political correctness in order to vent their frustration with all the human rights and values that have been affirmed by the international community and values which Australia has undertaken not only to support but to actively promote. 13. And it follows in conclusion that the members of my Commission see many challenges to its conviction that human rights matter for everyone. For many minorities in the Australian community it is a case of out of sight, out of mind and when you add to this the commonly expressed view in some conservative circles that all Australians should be treated equally, completely ignoring the truth that if people are unequal to begin with, no amount of equal treatment can overcome the disadvantage. And then, this simply all emphasises the vulnerability at present in Australia of minorities to further discrimination. The reality is that for many Australians there is such a fear of difference, or alternatively, a commitment to self-interest, that the interests of the majority will always take precedence until such time as there is a widespread commitment, at all levels of the community, to the principle that "Human Rights matter for Everyone". 14. If there is any truth in these reflections, this seminar assumes very great significance.