Human Rights 2019 - Disability and Human Rights in Australia

This talk, by Rosemary Kayess, Director Engagement, Disability Innovation Institute UNSW explores how international human rights norms have shifted fundamentally in the area of disability over the past 15 years. The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities international law has moved on from a benevolent welfare approach, based around care, treatment and protection to a modern conceptualisation of disability and human rights framed around disability as just one aspect of the human condition and equal participation. Australia ratified the Convention in 2008 and will appear before the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in September 2019. This talk will ultimately consider what a modern conceptualisation of disability means for human rights protection and law reform in Australia.
Bio: Rosemary Kayess, is the Director Engagement, Disability Innovation Institute UNSW and a human rights lawyer. Rosemary currently teaches in the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales. Convening international law and human rights subjects, focusing on the equality provisions within international instruments and their translation into domestic law and policy. She is also a Senior Research Fellow with Social Policy Research Centre UNSW.
Rosemary was an external expert on the Australian Government delegation to the United Nations negotiations for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. She is currently a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

[@loveunlimited777]

You are amazing. Thank you for your voice ❤️❤️❤️

[@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807]

? "This is Australia", they said. "Here?" they followed on, "This sort of thing doesn't happen in Australia." A reply with some hesitancy and confidence came in the form of "Errr, yes." Then, came silence. 'Silence' comes in many forms and for many reasons. It can be unexpected and surprising. Does 'silence' share the same space as 'free speech'? Is 'silence' a form of 'free speech', two sides of the same coin? Now, if you were asked, 'quick, speak up'? Is your mind full of ideas to share or has it unexpectedly gone blank. How about if you were given on moment of silence to reflect? Silence can be the space between words, a visual delineator between each word on a page or the passage of time between an exchange of words, like the time from the end of one Australian public speaking club meeting, club (local) of course, and the beginning of the next Australian public speaking club meeting. Silence, can be ... dot dot dot, in a sort of 'fill in the blank', like in a questionnaire, it can be the space provided to speak up, respect for other people and their freedom of thought, without interference. A freedom that is familiar at the Australian public speaking clubs, the freedom of speech, and, without state interference. This freedom, can come under the form of many names, and silence has been choosen to be exercised, not to go into details, however, a brief list of freedoms associated with freedom of speech include freedom of choice, of belief, of expression, of opinion, of the press, of conscience, of communication. Silence, can be a breath of fresh air, providing life to ideas, a prevention from being drowned out, from being silenced. Silence can be deafening, and speech can fall on deaf ears. Silence and speech, at the very least comes with responsibilities, and in some situations, rights and privileges. In being a member of an Australian public speaking club, it could be said, a privilege, but, can it be said it is a right? Is that 'the sound of silence'? (That is supposed to be a joke.) Perhaps the following exploration of ideas might bring things into focus. Broadly speaking, necessary for a functioning democracy, a legal separation of powers, between legislature, executive, and judiciary. Additionally, 'integrity' and 'the press, rhetorically, seen like a fourth branch of government, and critical for a functioning democracy. If the media's function above all else 'freedom of the press', then it possibly be more likely an argument to be made, putting into jeopardy journalists' privilege against disclosure of a source's protected information. In other words, in the scenario, the word 'privilege' is a legal right, not to speak up. How's that for irony? There are situations were, silence is assumed not to interfere with many aspects of democracy and the rule of law, including procedural fairness, like the ability for jurors to be found that have not already been influenced because 'silence' not exercised, ability for an accused's intentionality to be judged, silence as a 'right of any citizen, not to answer questions asked by investigating officials at pretrial investigative stage. In court, not to give any evidence as a witness at their own trial.' ... all these things could possibly alter, the availability or not, of various types of immunities, if there are any, in later legal proceedings ... and, in some countries 'a trial judge must warn the jury that no adverse inference (of guilt) can be drawn from the failure of the accused to give sworn evidence.', and that, is from the dictionary.(Oxford Australian). 'Silence' and 'free speech', it would seem they could be two sides of the same coin. It would seem that 'silence' could share the same space as 'free speech'. There could possibly be a conundrum though. How can procedural fairness be maintained and how is 'silence' achievable in court, if unable to secure representation and without giving up the legal presumption that, as an adult, you can make your own decisions from choices? Life is full of unexpected surprises. "This is Australia", they said. "Here?" they followed on, "This sort of thing doesn't happen in Australia? ". Speech given on Feb 25, 2021: (edited). 'The Macquarie Dictionary defines advice in the first instance as 'an opinion recommended, or offered, as worthy to be followed ' and an opinion, in the fourth, 'Law, a. Also, advisory opinion. formal or non-binding advice as to the legal position relating to some matter'. The Oxford Australian Law Dictionary in the first instance defines legal advice as 'information given by a legal practitioner to a client(...)' and in the second instance 'the practitioner's opinion(...)'. In contrast, Legal aid (lsc.sa.gov.au/cb_pages/applyonline.php ) requires that 8.(c) ( was 7.(c)) you must follow your lawyer's advice. Legal aid can be stopped if you do not do this; and, 12. (Was 11.) once you accept legal aid, the conditions of aid will apply to you whether or not you agree with them or understand them. ' .... - adult, majority, capacity (to)? Also, 4. legal aid is not free, and acceptance of legal aid includes acceptance of, 5. paying back costs. Victoria Law Foundation - Why do good lawyers represent bad people? Dec 22, 2014 If "people are entitled to the best defence they can get, these days, that usually means the best defence they can afford", does that mean that if the best defence a person can get isn't very good, then, their entitlement is limited to a defence that isn't very good? is that then not a judgement, a determination that a person who does not know any better, is entitled to defence that isn't very good? aIso, does that mean there is a correlation between quality of defence and quantity of the monetary value sought for time, i.e. rate, and proportional to total monetary quantity available over time? If so, the amount sought for defence would be representational of quality, and for the purposes of defence, it would not then matter if a person was eligible for legal aid, as a fixed total amount available for a given rate would not be competitive with an amount available over an indetermined amount of time greater than could be afforded by legal aid at the same rate. As for " why do doctors cure bad people, because they don't make ethical judgments", who does determine which people are bad and need to be cured by a doctor? If so does that make those particular doctors complicit?Otherwise, it would seem to more apt to say, because they can pay. In those scenarios it would seem the professions role to be more administrative and less so of that of an actual profession. What have I got wrong here?' ........................ "Colonies and States: In colonial times and into the twentieth century, ... In those States where criminal offences have been codified, these offences still exist today. In the other States, however, seditious libel, uttering seditious words, and participation in a seditious conspiracy were, and still are, common law offences. The exceptions are in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory, where legislation has repealed the common law offence." From aph gov au About_Parliament Parliamentary_Department Parliamentary_Library Publication_Archive archive sedition It seems that sedition provisions, for prohibited conduct, are part of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), and, the fault element for that prohibited conduct, is seditious intention and as that intention is defined in state and territory legislation. ........................ It seems like the following might be not irrelevant though, regardless of whether it is a federal or state level issue ....... ... legal capacity ... legal incapacity ... legal disability ... disability ... impairment ... substitute decision-making ... supported decision making ... supportive attorney ... general and or enduring power of attorney ... plenary guardian ... guardianship and administration ... public advocate ... I had lawyers in court argue that I needed a legal guardian to make decisions for me, instead of me, because I have a physical disability, as that according to the argument meant I had a legal disability which meant legal incapacity which meant not having capacity, as any adult over eighteen would, to make decisions which were legally binding. I was and still am self-represented and something I would not be able to do if I did not have the capacity to do so, although, that capacity those not mean I have the skills and know how of a solicitor, team of solicitors, or a barrister with thirty years experience and at the top of their field of specialisation. It seems like it is not unreasonable to forsee how, with an aging population and or people young or old with disabilities, play on words and general understanding or not, and various other factors like house titles and nursing home fees and such forth, that it could result in many not retaining their legal capacity and also therefore their right to make any decision with authority regarding their own life as an individual, or, to vote? Please tell me I am not correct.

[@SublimeStim]

love this I hope to grow up like you Rosemary