Responsibilities Towards State In Australiaâ€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Responsibilities Towards State In Australia? Answer: Introducation Rights are given so much weight nowadays. However one can easily forget that there is also another side to this equation which is related to the responsibilities towards the State in Australia. In accordance with the study of Runzo and Co-authors (2014), the actual meaning of right is that getting liberty from interference by government or any other individual. ndividual rights can be termed as freedom of each, and every individual gets to continue their life and goals with no interference from government or any other individual. Individual right is related to their life, freedom and pursue happiness as reported by the Australian government. However, these rights come with responsibilities towards community and state. Community refers to group of individuals having common morals and interests. Community n be described as "wholeness incorporating diversity" and might be inclusive of individuals with various values, ages, incomes and backgrounds. An individual can become a member of two or more communities; such as becoming part of geographic residence and member of workplace. State responsibilitiesare the duties and responsibilities of an individual to the society and are inclusive of support, value and contribution. It is a concept that goes beyond thoughts and performing as a person having common beliefs regarding shared interests and life. Voting in elections is a fundamental responsibility of a community. In this aspect major conflict is between responsibility ofEmbracing Australians Values and human rights provided to the citizens in Australia especially in terms of freedom of speech provided by Australian Government. From generations, this right is considered as given liberty which the most cherished among values underpinning Australia. Among all the most appreciated liberty is freedom of expression (Edwards, 2013). Although free speech is a severe and indisputable conception, its process could difficult and solid. However, this principle is mixture of black and white which makes it grey. It is because; freedom of speech cannot be considered as a total right. As it holds a variety of responsibilities and is restricted by legal restrictions, morals and principled considerations. According to the ICCPR Article 19, each and every individual holds the right to make opinions without any interference (French, 2015). Each and every person has right to liberty expressing, this right is inclusive of liberty to take, accept and pass on information and thoughts about anything, despite of frontiers, either by verbally or in written manner or printed or by any other medium of their wish. The attainment of right by an individual provided in paragraph 2 of this cited article holds with it exceptional responsibilities and duties. For that reason it can be subjected to some restrictions, however only in such cases, like legally provided or are mandatory: In context with the rights of others; The welfare of society or by public command, health or values (Barry and Sage-Jacobson). For a better understanding of this conflict following two cases can be considered which are related to free speech judgments which have been handled by a high court of Australia. In this aspect, the first case is Monis v The Queen. In this case, the defendant had sent letters to the acquaintances of soldiers who were killed in the war in Afghanistan. The letters condemned Australias association in military disagreement (Mearns, 2015). The defendant was held for allegedly breachingSec 471.12 of theCriminal Code Act 1995, as it was an offence for using postal services to threat or annoy someone or case a crime. In this aspect, defendant had a responsibility to respect the State norms and have not sent such letter which were alleged to offend other individuals. This was the clear case of misuse of provided right as this right is supposed to be used with the responsibility. Another case related to this aspect is of Attorney-General (SA) v Corporation of the City of Adelaide. This case involved several people speaking in a community in Adelaide. They allegedly breached the law local government by-law which makes illegal is a person talks, campaigns, harangue or else seeking for religious basis. However, this was vaguer as this was mere a discussion on which right was not misused to the severe extent. In both the cases, the decision depends entirely on is the laws were considered unacceptable for contravening animplied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. Further, in both cases, the court made a decision that the laws were applicable. Cited cases later appeared in the High Court for the final decision regarding Lex Wottenearly in 2013. In this case; extraordinary parole conditions put up by Wotten included a restriction on communication with journalists, and the general public was following hisimmersion in the 2004 Palm Island riot. The High Court defended the validity of parole condition (Gale, 2016). These Decisions shows that how weak the adopted right to freedom is. It can be said that dependency on security against laws that limit a persons right to liberty of speech. However, resolution of this dispute is mainly based on the entire situation and primarily on the intention of the defendant. Legal disputes related to freedom of speech can be resolved by both legal mechanism and non legal mechanisms. In the legal mechanism, the case is resolved through do the internal and external reviews in which statuary administrative and judicial bodies are involved, which are Royal commissions, Australian Human Rights Commission, Independent Commission against Corruption (Roberts, 2013). This resolution is a complete formal process which is cost and time-consuming. However, this is compulsory if the matter is severe like in the given three case examples. On the other hand, the non-legal mechanism includes trade unions, parliament members, media, non government associations and interest groups which act as a mediator and try to solve the situation without involving in legal proceedings (Merrils, 2017). The best example of this mechanism is alternative dispute resolution in which arbitrator or mediator is appointed who is the unbiased person who looks after the case in order to provide viable decision which is acceptable by both parties. Further, if concerned parties are not satisfied with the decision, then they can consider legal mechanisms References Barry, L. and Sage-Jacobson, S., 2015. Human Rights, Older People and Decision Making in Australia. Edwards, S.M., 2013. The genocide and terror of witchcraft accusation, persecution and related violence: an emergency situation for international human rights and domestic law.Int. Fam. Law,2013, pp.322-30. French, R., 2015, September. The fine art of giving and taking offence. InJudicial Review: Selected Conference Papers: Journal of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales, The(Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 21). Judicial Commission of NSW. Gale, P., 2016. Rights, responsibilities, and resistance: Legal discourse and intervention legislation in the Northern Territory in Australia.Semiotica,2016(209), pp.167-185. Mearns, C.A., 2015.Monis v The Queen: what the High Court's split on gender lines reveals about the discrimination at the heart of the implied freedom of political communication(Doctoral dissertation, Australian National University). Merrills, J., 2017.International dispute settlement. Cambridge university press. Roberts, S., 2013.Order and dispute: an introduction to legal anthropology. Quid Pro Books. Runzo, J., Martin, N.M. and Sharma, A., 2014.Human rights and responsibilities in the world religions. Oneworld Publications.