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.
As Australia faces numerous moral crises from domestic inequality to global militarization, a proposed national charter of principles could to reshape our society and redefine our global role. This declaration would acknowledge Indigenous dispossession, prioritize human rights, and shift focus from military alliances to human security.
In response to campus protests, universities erred on the side of free speech when every other day, the prevailing ethos is one of ‘safetyism’, namely suppressing speech or inquiry if an identity group frames it as ‘harmful’ to them. Universities should strive to be uncomfortable and ‘unsafe’ for all, with no identity immune from robust scrutiny.
'The common law leaves a gap between the mandates of the law and the conduct that we choose to engage in according to our individual moral standards. We call that gap 'freedom'. The challenge is determining the width of that gap for groups bound by religious faith which differs from the Australian majority.' Frank Brennan launches Carolyn Evans' Legal Protection of Religious Freedom in Australia. Full text
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy appears relaxed about Gina Rinehart's move towards control of Fairfax Media because governments are predisposed to placate media owners. A human rights charter could be the only way to maintain media diversity.
When the Government announced that its response to the National Human Rights Consultation would not include a legislative Charter of Rights, many activists despaired. I am more sanguine. We knew from the beginning that a Human Rights Act would be a big ask.
The Australian Christian Lobby never claims to represent the views of all Christians any more than the Greens represent the views of all tree-lovers or Fr Brennan represents the views of all Catholics — just ask Cardinal Pell!
For a while we were leading the world on climate change. But once Copenhagen collapsed Rudd assured us 'Australia will do no more and no less than the rest of the world'. The lowest common denominator is not usually the solution to the great moral challenges.
A majority of Australians seem to view the Black Faces segment on Hey Hey as benign, at worst. A Human Rights Charter might amplify the voice of the Koori woman who called a talkback radio station to say the segment had undermined her sense of equality.
Sixty years on, it is fashionable to describe the Declaration of Human Rights as a peculiarly western, individualistic conception. It was not. Now is the time for Australia to discuss how best to make the State attentive to the still, small voice of conscience.