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.
Last week, Australia’s High Court blocked government restrictions on non-citizens with criminal records. As Parliament scrambles to impose new restrictions, Chief Justice Stephen Gageler’s court remains steadfast against policies deemed discriminatory and excessively punitive.
Two narratives dominate Australia’s view of children. The first casts them as dangerous, irredeemable offenders. The second, as vulnerable innocents threatened by risks online. Both anxieties reveal deep-seated tensions over safety, innocence, and societal responsibility.
In the most bitter of election seasons in America, thousands of votes will be won and lost by seeking to protect the civil rights of Israelis and Palestinians alike, although any kind of lasting peace will require greater effort than any U.S. political party has yet devoted to it.
In the spirit of Spring Racing, the United Nations promotes its own high-stakes race: World Disarmament Week and United Nations Day. Despite heavy odds and the relentless rise of nuclear threats, these efforts remain crucial for global peace. Can the underdog of diplomacy prevail in the face of overwhelming opposition?
Two years ago to the month, I wrote in this column of my despair and disgust of the impunity with which society leaders and politicians didn’t just shade the truth, but buried it six-feet deep and then gleefully stomped on it. In the past week, a couple of things reminded me of that piece and about the role truth plays in our public discourse. It reminded me how fragile our grasp on reality has become, and why that matters.
With moments of shared perspective and common ground, the weird thing about the CBS debate the debate between the two putative vice-presidents, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, was how civil and considerate it was and (in its way) how impressive.
The Government is making another valiant effort to rein in the adverse effects of ungoverned digital platforms. But in debating such a detailed bill without the backstop of a constitutional or statutory bill of rights recognising the right to freedom of expression, there are no clear guard rails for getting the balance right.
While women-only spaces have long been seen as essential, the verdict raises questions about inclusivity and the potential for compromise. Is it possible to balance gender equality with the need for safe, exclusive spaces?
In the aftermath of the failed Voice referendum, questions arise about the legal profession’s role in public discourse. Was this a missed opportunity for legal experts to provide critical analysis and guidance on such a significant constitutional matter?
After a year in court, a U.S. Judge concluded that Google has a monopoly over search and had illegally maintained its monopoly by making massive payments to other companies to be their default search engine. Everyone in tech is quietly watching for what happens next, because how the U.S. Department of Justice treats Google will set the example for the other giants standing astride the world.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) recently ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories had violated international law by encouraging settlements on occupied land. While the judgment imposes legal obligations, it does not consider how they might be met.
It’s easy, isn’t it – much too easy – to invoke the standard response that only in the so-called Land of the Free could these things transpire. A vulgar, mendacious man who has refused to believe that he lost the last election is now the improbable victim of an assassination attempt. And the incumbent president, who has not done badly at his impossible job, surrenders his chance at re-election.
1-12 out of 200 results.