Posts Tagged human rights
It’s been the subject of debate for years, but now paediatricians are pushing to make smacking children illegal.
Dr Gervase Chaney, the head of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ Paediatric & Child Health Division says it’s no longer ok for parents to argue that smacking ‘never did us any harm’.
He has likened smacking a child to child abuse and said his colleagues should join him in standing up for human rights.
His comments were published in a letter in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health
The debate was sparked by a letter to the UK’s Daily Telegraph by Prof Terence Stephenson from the Royal College of Paediatrics.
He said: “Smacking is too often seen as the easy option – sadly as paediatricians we see all too often today’s smack becomes tomorrow’s punch.”
The letter to the paper was in response to claims that a UK MP said that last year’s London riots could be partly blamed on parents’ inability to smack their children in order to punish them.
In Australia, Dr Chaney is pushing the Royal Australasian College of Physicians paediatric and child health division to officially support a ban on smacking.
Their current position is opposed to the use of physical discipline and says that it’s an infeffective method of punishing children however he feels it doesn’t go far enough: “There has been good evidence that in countries where it has been banned there is a reduction in child abuse.”
He says he will push for a formal chance of stance on smacking and that it was likely to be approved and will be followed with a call for official legislative change.
However according to the Herald Sun, it wouldn’t be supported in Victoria. a spokesman for Premier Ted Baillieu said there were “no plans to change the law as it relates to the smacking of children”.
In Australian states, a parent can smack as long as it is considered ‘reasonable chastisement’.
According to the Daily Telegraph, psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg said he favoured “reasonable chastisement of a child”.
“You are not allowed to hit a child on the head or with an implement. the reality is the two most effective ways of disciplining children are noticing when they get it right and reinforcing that with praise, and time out,” he said.
The issue has divided opinion this morning. Neil Mitchell from 3AW told Mel and Kochie on Sunrise that although smacking is damaging, you can’t make it illegal.
He said: “You can’t have police sitting at every dinner table every night. I’d rather the doctors were suggesting something with a bit more consideration. Instead of smacking, try time out or come up with options.”
Chris Smith from 2GB agreed, saying it’s parents’ responsibility. “I don’t think a ban would work. would it be enforceable? when it comes to serious cases of child abuse, we can’t police and enforce that properly. both the police and state governments will tell you that.”
He believes that parents don’t need to smack anymore. “There are so many devices in the modern family environment you can use to prevent bad behaviour.”
What do you think? Should smacking be illegal? Tell us in our poll
An important role of the Commission is its stautory responsibilities under Australia’s federal human rights and anti-discrimination law. These laws allow people to make complaints to the Commission, for example, if they feel they have been treated unfairly because they are a person of a particular race or sex, or they have a disability. This video provides useful information about the conciliation process for people who have made, or are thinking about making a complaint to the Commission and people or organisations that have had complaints made against them. The Pathways to Resolution program as well as providing an overview of the complaint process, the video: * outlines the various forms the conciliation process may take * explains the role of the conciliator * outlines how parties should prepare for and approach conciliation, and * with reference to an example case study, walks viewers through the various stages of a face-to-face conciliation meeting. For more information, see : www.humanrights.gov.au
In NC two bills have recently been introduced in the Legislature that will change workers’ compensation laws and eliminate protections for injured workers. under HB 709 and SB 544: Injured workers cannot choose their own doctor. The Insurance Company can talk to injured workers’ doctors without their knowledge or consent. if they do not “cooperate” with the doctor the insurance company has chosen, benefits will stop. This portion of the bill “cooks” the system and makes it unfair. further, a worker loses the entire physician/patient privilege, the right to have confidence in their medical provider, and all sense of any fairness or privacy. further, there are unintended consequences with an impact on doctors. Doctors already do not like the workers’ compensation system due to the extra time they have to spend answering questions to insurance companies about legal issues. The questions will be non-stop if insurance companies and defense attorneys can contact the doctors directly without the approval of the employee and this will drive doctors out of the system. Plus, another point that no one seems to be making- is that insurance companies and employers ALREADY direct medical care in NC. Employees can only transfer care at the order of the Industrial Commission. This tips the balance way too far so that employees can NEVER select a doctor of their own choosing. This is unfair especially when other states allow the employee to select the dr. from the very beginning. if you …Video Rating: 5 / 5
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 29th, 2011 at 2:23 pm and is filed under Workman Compensation Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Last week I attended in London the conference “Business and Human Rights: Implementing the UN Guiding Principles”, organized by the BIICL in collaboration with the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, the Söderberg Foundation, the International Bar Association, and Clifford Chance. a very intense day and a half. the conference was divided into six panels, each with several speakers combining knowledge and practical experience in the field. indeed, one of the great successes of the conference was to bring together people dedicated to different activities in the field of human rights and business – academic, practical, institutional, with great variety within each of them. not exhaustively: we could listen to Peter Muchlinsky (on state-owned transnational corporations and the Guiding Principles); Radu Mares (on the question of affiliates and the responsibility of the core company); Mary Dowell-Jones (a pessimistic view on the future of human rights as the financial crisis grows and expands); Christopher Ward (on the Australian Wheat Board Limited scandal, as an example of the failure of the state duty to protect); Patricia Feeney (on the Anvil case); Maurizio Lazala (of the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre); Rae Lindsay (on the Principles and their effect on a lawyers firm); Charlotte Wolf (from ArcelorMittal); John Bray (on human rights impact as a business risk); Susan Bird (on the active role of the European Commission in the finalization of the Principles, and on what is being and going to be done to implement them in the EU); Marie France Houde (on the revised OECD guidelines), o Meg Taylor (on the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman scheme, and how it fits within the World Bank group). all this allowed to address the relationship between the UN Principles and businesses from many diverse angles.
The richness of the contents makes an adequate summary impossible. I’m not only talking of the presentations of the speakers, but also of the comments of chairs (which would have been excellent speakers themselves), and the subsequent discussions. I particularly loved the second panel, the closest to a private international law approach, on the obstacles of access to justice in developed countries such as Australia, or the UK, for various reasons, among which the proposed changes in legal aid are specially to be feared – all issues I’m presently studying. But there was a lot more: the report of the representative of ArcelorMittal on the process of elaboration and implementation of a policy on human rights in a transnational corporation; the analysis of the adjustment (better, non adjustment) of the Principles to the financial system; a presentation on the need to understand human rights impact as a risk to be managed, on which corporations need professional advice; another on the OECD updated guidelines and their relationship to J. Ruggie’s Principles; one on the incorporation of human rights to the performance standards required under IFC projects; the impact of business on human rights in conflict zones; a (deliciously told) report of the concrete experience of a National Contact Point; or the explanation of some non judicial grievance standards as alternative justice mechanisms. And lots of questions and comments followed: for example, on how to incorporate China in this context; on possible reactions to the failure of a company to comply with a statement made in the context of a non-judicial grievance mechanism; on the real implication of EU in business and human rights…
At the end of the conference a comment reached my ears about a summary being published. I think it would be a great idea. Also, some of the documents given to the audience correspond to future publications of which I expect to be informed and tell on this site.
A claim of discrimination made by a woman whose employers asked her to cover a tattoo has been dismissed by the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
in may last year Claire Haupini, 32, who worked as a casual worker for the Spit Roast Catering Company in Auckland, was asked to cover up the tattoo on her left forearm, which evoked her Whakatohea and Ngaphui tribal links.
Working at a corporate function, Mrs Haupini was asked to wear a three-quarter shirt instead of a shorter-sleeved one being worn by workmates.
the tribunal heard the request left her angry, distressed and humiliated and brought her to tears on several occasions.
But the company argued that the employer’s request that a tattoo be covered for work purposes was a means of achieving a legitimate objective relating to the appearance of staff.
in the decision, tribunal chairman Royden Hindle said the case could not be considered to be one of “direct discrimination” – discrimination based on the fact Mrs Haupini was Maori.
Instead, the tribunal had to consider whether “indirect discrimination” was evident; specifically, whether the requirement that Mrs Haupini should cover her “moko” was one that had a disproportionate negative effect on her because of her race and/or ethnicity.
Her lawyers argued that the request affected Mrs Haupini’s mana and that “Maori experience the rule as disrespectful of their whakapapa, cultural tradition and custom”.
“A non-Maori person would not experience such detriment as a result of a ‘no tattoos’ policy.”
however, while the tribunal accepted mana had been affected, Mrs Haupini’s further arguments couldn’t be upheld when no evidence was presented about the proportion of Maori who would be offended by being asked to cover up.
the tribunal did not accept non-Maori would not experience detriment, and dismissed the case because of insufficient evidence.
Company director Graham Peet said he was pleased with the outcome. “We feel the judgment brings a common sense approach to the reasonable concerns a company has in managing the appearance of its staff when working in a frontline role.”
Mrs Haupini did not respond to Herald requests for comment.
By Yvonne Tahana | Email Yvonne
Curtin Detention Centre
DIAC has released a new fact sheet relating to the Character Requirement, Factsheet 79, which includes an additional provision; that a person will not pass the character test where:
- they have been convicted of any offence that was committed while in immigration detention,during an escape from immigration detention, during a period where a person escaped from immigration detention, or if the person has been convicted of the offence of escaping from immigration detention
DIAC also advises that with regard to the conduct of people in immigration detention:
A person will not pass the character test if they receive a conviction of any kind, regardless of whether a prison sentence has been imposed while:
- in immigration detention
- during an escape from immigration detention
- during a period where a person had escaped from immigration detention
- if the person has been convicted of the offence of escaping from immigration detention.
I think the current government is making a total mess of the asylum seeker issue; politically and personally, as did the government before it. I think the mandatory detention of innocent people in prison-like complexes is a human rights contravention; and I’m a vocal supporter of asylum seekers’ rights to be treated humanely, fairly and with compassion.
But as a taxpayer, I am completely in support of reasonable deterrents being introduced to stop anyone, regardless of their citizenship status or any underlying drivers, vandalising, defacing or destroying public facilities that have been built as a result of my, and my fellow taxpayers’, hard work. I don’t work 60-70 hour weeks to have my tax payments wasted and to see my contribution to Australia’s economy going up in flames.
I support the government on this move and wish it would show the same interest in deterring vandalism and destruction of other public facilities such as schools, prisons and public housing. but being tough with Australians would involve alienating voters, so I won’t hold my breath!
What do you think? Should the Government be as tough on home-grown vandals as it is on destructive asylum-seekers?