“If we want to put justice fairness and equality at the heart of the Commonwealth Government’s decision making process we need a National Human Rights Act”
Read More
Ms Green’s remarks, clearly fall within the bounds of protected speech. Criticising government policy is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and attempts to suppress such criticism, particularly within artistic expression, set a dangerous precedent. While public institutions may not always agree with the views expressed by individuals, it is wholly inappropriate for governments to use the withdrawal of financial support as a tool to punish or silence speech.
Read More
It is a core belief of the QCCL that democracies are strengthened, not weakened, when space is made for peaceful dissent. A decision by the State Government to withdraw funding from the Queensland Music Awards due to one artist’s lawful political expression during an acceptance speech would set a deeply concerning and dangerous precedent.
Read More
The removal of the “reasonable suspicion” requirement, or any other objective basis for the search, rendered the citizen extremely vulnerable to an arbitrary exercise of power, restrained only by the police officer's honesty
Read More
"To those who say that these laws could have an impact on certain statutory decision-making schemes, we say that is what rights are meant to do. Rights are constraints on the exercise of discretions."
Read More
The likely result of these laws is that responsibility for the commission of these crimes will be passed on to parents and other relatives who didn’t check the register or didn’t take some hypothetical steps rather than responsibility clearly and solely lying with the offender.
Read More
It is submitted that in relation to the Commission making a public statement both in relation to the corruption assessment stage and at the conclusion of the Commission’s investigations, the Bill should be amended to make it clear that the provision contained within Section 65A(4)(g) namely “whether the statement may unreasonably damage the person’s health, safety or wellbeing or privacy or reputation” should be given significant weight by the Commission in deciding whether to issue a public statement.
Read More
“Excluding people who must live their lives on public land from it is a callous and tyrannical exercise of power by a lucky majority against a minority of their less fortunate fellow human beings.” says Mr Cope
Read More
It is our position that reverse onus offences are never justified, as the burden of proof should always be borne by the State, with its superior powers and resources. However, since this is unlikely to be accepted, we submit that if members of the public must have the burden of proving their innocence, then the evidentiary standard must be possible for a private citizen to feasibly challenge, and judges must have sufficient discretion to ensure a fair trial. The scheme as currently implemented satisfies neither of these criteria.
Read More