Sovereignty is used to describe the idea of the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit, Parliamentary sovereignty is part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom. It dictates that Parliament can make or unmake any laws as it is the ultimate legal authority in the UK. Parliament is still sovereign as it can make law on any matter and it has legislative supremacy. However parliamentary sovereignty can be questioned due to the membership of the European Union and the Human Rights Act. Parliament can make laws on any matter due to Dicey in ‘Law of the Constitution (1885).’ He said that ‘in theory Parliament has total power.
Domestically, the Bali Bombing has led to the introduction of new legislation that gives Australian law enforcement agencies more power to deal with any threats of terrorism that threaten Australian soils. There has been heavy criticism on the new legislation from other legal scholars, who think that the new legislation undermine key legal rights. There is much debate about the best way on how to protect Australia from terrorism inside and outside of its boarders, all while conserving its fundamental freedoms. There has also been a long term relationship established with the Australian and Indonesian enforcement agencies. This has a view of long-term measures; with the AFP has invested many of its resources in Indonesia, with the Jakarta office having the second largest deployment of AFP officers to a foreign country.
They comment that "moving to a mandatory ISP filtering regime with a scope that goes well beyond such material (child abuse and terrorism) is heavy handed and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information." iinet an Australian ISP who are also against the filter accuse Conroy of intentionally giving false information when he claims "85% of ISP's welcome the filter." So now he’s a liar too. The general public has taken protest even further. The group anonymous attempted to "annihilate (the Australian governments) presence on the internet" by dosing Australian government websites, mainly the aph website.
The obvious downside to the medias role in our political endeavors, is the continuos bias that it portrays, the high cost to run any sort of political or public directive, and that they simply operate under the initiative of profit. The amount of money required to reach citizens with political messages has spiraled upward and now dominates political campaigns. Television formats favor short, emotional appeals over reasoned, thoughtful debate. Typical claims of liberal or conservative bias are most often in the eyes of the beholder, however the levels of managed news, spin and journalistic punditry feed these perceptions of bias in the news. As a result, the deeper biases reflected in sensationalism often leave citizens confused about issues which forces them to deconstruct this alternately managed and frenzied news in order to make sound judgements about their society and government.
This could be one reason why the American President can only stay in power for two terms. If the ministers surrounding the PM cannot take collective responsibility for their decisions then it is easy for not only the public but your opposition to place blame for a particular issue on the PM’s head. Thus creating a great deal of ill will towards that PM over time. Thatcher’s ‘sofa cabinet’ has been an idea carried on by Blair and Cameron as both tend to surround themselves with advisors of their own choosing as opposed to the cabinet ministers, acting very independently. However, it was Blair that truly started the media frenzy surrounding Prime Ministerial candidates around the general election.
Manipulation of media is of course one of the main factors. Nowadays, we know all too well how easily it is for media corporations to support one political agenda or another by twisting facts and feeding false information. Consumerism, supported and viralized by media, also carries a message which tends to separate those who consume a certain kind of product from those who do not, stating that the former are happier than the latter. This exercises certain social pressure among consumerist individuals who may somehow see their social status affected and thus feel left out. As a result, the key for the survival of individuality lies in how conformist the people are ready and willing to become.
In recognition of the hysterical and one-dimensional debate surrounding boats and people smugglers, an opinion piece titled “Moral compass for boats” appeared in the age on the third of October 2011. The piece is written by John Menadue and Arja Keski-Nummi, who have both been involved in humanitarian and immigration policy affairs. This fact not only lends credibility to the arguments proposed, but also indicates the target audience which appears to be the voting public of Australia and members of Australia’s political parties. In a moralising yet importunate tone, the writers contend that Australia is in need of a comprehensive policy approach that processes asylum claims onshore whilst also ensuring that individuals are treated with dignity and respect. Menadue and Keski-Nummi seek to contextualise the issue within grounds of morality and justice rather than one that is entirely consumed by
Summary. Contrary to popular belief, there are diminutive facts to support the existence of youth gangs within Australia. However, means of prevention have been put into place, as are already evident within overseas countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Even without concrete proof, there are still perceptions from local communities pertaining to the existence and the threat of youth gangs. Because of such beliefs, authorities will almost certainly take action, to quash such perceptions, despite what is really happening at a local level.
The argument was based around the issues of Australia’s international reputation and the problems of certain State policies. It also highlighted that if aboriginals are counted in the census, it could also lead to better funding the Aboriginals. The Australian government referred to the ‘Yes’ campaign as ‘our international reputation in a world in which racial issues are being highlighted everyday’. The media constantly referred to the fact that the country would suffer embarrassment internationally if this referendum was not
The National Committee on Violence (1989) defines racist violence as “a specific act of violence, intimidation or harassment carried out against an individual, group or organisation on the basis of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.” (p.2) Racial violence can take many forms, including harm to people or harm to property. What sets racial violence apart from other types of violence is the motivation behind the behaviour (p. 1). In Australia, there is a long history of racial violence which continues into the present day, and this issue gives no indication of resolving itself in the near future (Winterdyk & Antonopoulos, 2008). Many of these acts are crimes under State or Federal laws, but this wasn’t always so. From the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788, the indigenous Australians have been excluded from society and violently persecuted because of their race (Stillwell & Argyrous, 2003).