Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
Accusing someone of being ‘un-Australian’ is easily done, but what crimes or potential threats to the security and safety of Australians should trigger the practice of stripping someone of their citizenship?
Charged with breaching national security for exposing alleged war crimes by Australian forces in Afghanistan, former Australian military lawyer David McBride's trial in Canberra rekindles a debate that tests the boundaries of military obedience and public interest. At the heart of this legal battle lies the question: when does the duty to expose wrongdoing outweigh the duty to follow orders?
Any legislation hastily designed to negate the effect of the High Court decisions will be vulnerable again to be struck down on judicial appeal. That haste suggests an initial disregard for human rights and the rule of law by Governments and an ingrained resistance to any limitation of its power. Vindictive laws come at a heavy cost to the integrity and reputation of the lawmakers.
The spectacular rise and fall of Sam Bankman-Fried is a story that began with unfettered brilliance and financial wizardry, but quickly unraveled into an all-too familiar cautionary tale of swindlers, conmen, and morally vacuous ambition.
On the face of it, the decision of the Queensland Government to pass an amendment to permit holding children in police cells was a desperate and discrediting action. Underneath it, however, was a complex coming together of events, prejudices and attitudes.
How has Australia's asylum seeker policy changed over the past thirty years? The approach of every government has reflected the shifting political landscapes and challenging humanitarian issues that have continually shaped Australia's response to those seeking refuge.
In a society quick to categorize children as either good or bad, reform efforts seem caught in a cyclical battle. Children often fall victim to these broad definitions, especially those from disadvantaged groups. What factors cause these cycles of progress and relapse, and how can lasting reform be achieved?
In the aftermath of the Robodebt scandal, an unsettling public apathy has emerged. Beyond exposing the pitfalls of automated welfare and demanding accountability, the response — or lack thereof — spotlights a worrying indifference towards the disenfranchised.
Encompassing the indictment of Donald Trump, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Australia's Indigenous Voice referendum, the quest for justice has evolved into an abstract and bitter fight, obscuring our common humanity, and requiring us to find a restorative, forgiving route.
Observing World Refugee Week and the Referendum on the Voice to Parliament together is appropriate because the First Peoples and later refugees have suffered in similar ways. Jordana Silverstein's latest book draws striking parallels between Australia's colonial past and the modern treatment of refugee children.
Kathleen Folbigg's release, prompted by the discovery of a genetic mutation that created reasonable doubt in her conviction, marks a significant intersection of science and law. However, the case highlights the need to critically assess the weight and limitations of scientific authority in our justice system, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty embedded within human affairs.
At the intersection of myth, science, and law is the contentious case of Kathleen Folbigg, accused of being a modern-day Medea. Convicted of killing her children and later exonerated, Folbigg’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the complexities of science in legal judgments and societal myths of motherhood cloud our interpretation of facts.
13-24 out of 200 results.