For those interested in what the editorial contained, I have posted it below:
The Canberra Times
EDITORIAL
Thursday, 24 February, 2000
On domestic convenience and treaties
WHEN is a binding international treaty not a binding international
treaty? Whenever it becomes inconvenient, apparently.
The Prime Minister's blunt reminder that ' nobody tells Australia what
to do' in regard to mandatory sentencing, and his indignation at the
idea that anyone might impugn Australia's human-rights record, were
no doubt sincere. One can only wonder if he realised how reminiscent
his words were of the words of other leaders, in other countries and
at other times, who have insisted that their treatment of their citizens
is purely a domestic matter, of no possible interest to meddling
do-gooders from outside.
How often in the past have Australians scoffed when other countries
have excused draconian laws or practices as domestic imperatives?
How often have we been outraged when ' cultural differences' or
national sovereignty have been invoked to excuse alleged excesses?
No-one is suggesting that mandatory sentencing laws deserve to be
held up alongside, say, the imprisonment of political prisoners, or
ethnic cleansings, as examples of the state-sanctioned abuse of
human rights. There are degrees of dreadfulness when it comes to
government actions, just as there are degrees of excellence.
A general reputation for excellence and Mr Howard is correct in
believing that on balance Australia's record stacks up reasonably well
should not be a shield against scrutiny. If anything, nations which
pride themselves on their record should be more open to scrutiny,
not less, more eager to engage in a considered global debate about
values and practices.
Why not engage the United Nations in a discussion of mandatory
sentencing in the Northern Territory and Western Australia? Why not
broach the subject, rather than adopting a surly silence and waiting
to see if the UN dares to utter the words first?
There are times when the Government is happy to remind people we
have international obligations. There are other times when we are
encouraged to feel that such obligations are an assault on our
sovereignty.
A few months ago Mr Howard was asking the states and territories to
put on hold their plans to set up safe injecting rooms for intravenous
drug users, cautioning that such rooms might be in breach of an
international convention on illicit drugs. And as recently as this month
the Government criticised Tasmania for its refusal to bow to a World
Trade Organisation ruling on the importation of Canadian salmon.
On the other hand, the Government has long and strenuously
maintained that Australia has no obligation to observe international
conventions in the Teoh case (going so far as to draft legislation to
absolve itself from such obligation). And it has also acted with less
than alacrity in ensuring that the states meet their obligations under
international greenhouse conventions. Now, Mr Howard has warned
the UN to mind its own business over mandatory sentencing.
The Coalition has no better or worse a record when it comes to
selective recourse to international obligations than previous
governments (though it has been more sceptical about the need for
such instruments).
But the practice of picking and choosing treaties to bolster domestic
political agendas is dangerous. Australia's cavalier attitude
contributes to a weakening in the authority of all such treaties and
creates a precedent for other countries, whose standards of
behaviour are generally lower. Why should any country take its
international obligations seriously, when it has such a politically
expedient example to follow?
*********
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can a UN Secretary General who deals with wars and genocide be seriously
> expected to raise WA + NT mandatory sentencing (and admit he did it)?
> What about human rights abuses affecting thousands more victims elsewhere?
> Has any journalist asked if Kofi Annan raised concern about the Prime
> Minister's assurance that Australia is "not accountable to the world" for
> its human rights record?
>
> The UN has its proper mechanisms to deal with issues such as m s, like the
> Human Rights Committee which in July this year will consider Australia's
> record since 1987.
> I suggest today's Canberra Times editorial for what this debate is really
> about.
>
> Heinz
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
