Legal, cultural and practical developments in responding to female genital mutilation : can an absolute human right emerge?

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a cultural practice involving the deliberate, non-therapeutic physical modification of young girls’ genitalia. FGM can take several forms, ranging from smaller incisions, to removal of the clitoris and labia, and narrowing or even closing of the vagina. FGM predates and has no basis in the Koran, or any other religious text. Rather, it is a cultural tradition, particularly common in Islamic societies in regions of Africa, motivated by a patriarchal society’s desire to control female bodies and lives. The primary reason for this desire for control is to ensure virginity at marriage, thereby preserving family honour, within a patriarchal social structure where females’ value as persons is intrinsically connected to, and limited to, their worth as virgin brides. Recent efforts at legal prohibition and practical eradication in a growing number of African nations mark a significant turning point in how societies treat females. This shift in cultural power has been catalysed by a concern for female health, but it has also been motivated by an impulse to promote the human rights of girls and women. Although FGM remains widely practiced and there is much progress yet to be made before its eradication, the rights-based approach which has grown in strength embodies a marked shift in cultural power which reflects progress in women’s and children’s rights in the Western world, but which is now being applied in a different cultural context. This chapter reviews the nature of FGM, its prevalence, and health consequences. It discusses recent legal, cultural and practical developments, especially in African nations. Finally, this chapter raises the possibility that an absolute human right against FGM may emerge.

The right to choose an assisted death : time for legislation?

The legal framework that operates at the end of life in Australia needs to be reformed. • Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently unlawful. • Both activities nevertheless occur not infrequently in Australia, in part because palliative care cannot relieve physical and psychological pain and suffering in all cases. • In this respect, the law is deficient. The law is also unfair because it doesn’t treat people equally. Some people can be helped to die on their own terms as a result of their knowledge and/or connections while some are able to hasten their death by the refusal of life-sustaining treatment. But others do not have access to the means for their life to end. • A very substantial majority of Australians have repeatedly expressed in public opinion polls their desire for law reform on these matters. Many are concerned at what they see is happening to their loved ones as they reach the end of their lives, and want the confidence that when their time comes they will be able to exercise choice in relation to assisted dying. • The most consistent reason advanced not to change the law is the need to protect the vulnerable. There is a concern that if the law allows voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for some people, it will be expanded and abused, including pressures being placed on highly dependent people and those with disabilities to agree to euthanasia. • But there is now a large body of experience in a number of international jurisdictions following the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. This shows that appropriate safeguards can be implemented to protect vulnerable people and prevent the abuse that opponents of assisted dying have feared. It reveals that assisted dying meets a real need among a small minority of people at the end of their lives. It also provides reassurance to people with terminal and incurable disease that they will not be left to suffer the indignities and discomfort of a nasty death. • Australia is an increasingly secular society. Strong opposition to assisted death by religious groups that is based on their belief in divine sanctity of all human life is not a justification for denying choice for those who do not share that belief. • It is now time for Australian legislators to respond to this concern and this experience by legislating to enhance the quality of death for those Australians who seek assisted dying.

The Convergence Review and the principle of Australians' access to and opportunities for participation

The recent Australian Convergence Review’s second principle states: “Australians should have access to and opportunities for participation in a diverse mix of services, voices, views and information”. However, in failing to define its own use and understanding of the terms ‘access’ and ‘participation’ the Convergence Review exposes itself to criticism. These terms would no doubt be made unambiguously clear should the Review’s recommendations move towards policy, and this paper contributes to this discussion by framing access and participation, from the perspective of the ‘produser’ (Bruns, 2008), around three separate but related issues: the failure to frame the discussion that will be undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2012 2013 Copyright Inquiry; the prioritising of the market over and above media accountability and the health of the public sphere; and the missed opportunity to develop a national framework for digital literacy and advanced digital citizenry.

Archimedes, aid/watch, constitutional levers and where we now stand

Archimedes is reported as famously saying: 'Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth.' He was referring to the power of levers. His point was that a person of ordinary capacity with a place to stand, a fulcrum and a level could change the path of planets. This principle of physics is a metaphor for how the common law has moved over the last millennium. Courts have found a stable foundation on which to stand, such as the constitutional bedrock or well-grounded precedent, and, using cases as fulcrums and legal principles as levers, the have moved the law. Australia is at a critical juncture in the development of the law of charities. The High Court of Australia has held that political purposes can be charitable in certain circumstances. The Parliament of Australia has not only enshrined this in a statutory definition of charity but has done so with a preamble to the legislation which affirms the basis for this development in residing in the 'unique nature and diversity of charities and the distinctive and important role that they play in Australia'.

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013

This submission relates to the proposed amendment of the Crown Use provisions in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (“the Patents Act”),which are contained in Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 2013 (“The Bill”). Specifically, the submission relates to the method of calculation of the remuneration payable to the patent applicant/owner in circumstances where the Crown exercises its rights under Chapter 17 of the Patents Act.

Submission to the Attorney-General's Department consultation on "Marrakesh Treaty options for implementation" discussion paper

It is extremely important to ensure that people with disabilities can access information and cultural works on an equal basis with others. Access is fundamentally important to enable people with disabilities to fully participate in economic, social, and political life. This is both a pressing moral imperative and a legal requirement in international law. Australia should take clear steps to affirmatively redress the fundamental inequalities of access that people with disabilities face. This requires a fundamental shift in the way that we think about copyright and disability rights: the mechanisms for enabling access should not be a limited exception to normal distribution, but should instead be strong positive rights that are able to be routinely and practically exercised.

Hail to the thief: A tribute to Kazaa

This paper considers the ongoing litigation against the peer to peer network Kazaa. Record companies and Hollywood studios have faced jurisdictional and legal problems in suing this network for copyright infringement. As Wired Magazine observes: ’The servers are in Denmark. The software is in Estonia. The domain is registered Down Under, the corporation on a tiny island in the South Pacific. The users - 60 million of them - are everywhere around the world.' In frustration, copyright owners have launched copyright actions against intermediaries - like Internet Service Providers such as Verizon. They have also embarked on filing suits of individual users of file-sharing programs. In addition, copyright owners have called for domestic and international law reform in respect of digital copyright. The Senate Committee on Government Affairs in the United States Congress has reviewed the controversial use of subpoenas in suits against users of file-sharing peer to peer networks. The United States has encouraged other countries to adopt provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US) in bilateral and regional free trade agreements.

Submission on the Hawke Interim Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

There are currently no regulatory mechanisms, laws or policies that specifically provide rights to Indigenous peoples over their Indigenous knowledge and intellectual property. We strongly recommend that the commonwealth take the lead to ensure that national sui generis laws are developed (perhaps to operate initially in areas of Cth jurisdiction, such as IPAs and national parks). The development of such laws should be in tandem with practical guidelines to assist their implementation. A comprehensive, nationally consistent scheme for access to genetic resources, which offers meaningful protection of traditional knowledge and substantive benefit-sharing with Indigenous communities, has to be developed. There are already a range of reports/resources that urge these same reforms and that we direct the Enquiry to again; these include the Voumard Report (2000) – especially Fourmile’s Appendix 10 – “Indigenous Interests”, and Terri Jankes “Our Culture, Our Future (1998).

Understanding evidence

The law of evidence is often seen as complex, inaccessible and difficult to master. This cases and materials book provides a concise accurate and invaluable analysis of this challenging discipline

Back to the future : the war on terror and its impact on civil liberties

This comment looks at the capacity of the Australian Constitution to protect the civil liberties of a small number of citizens and would be citizens whose lives have been forever changed by recent acts of terror and the legislative and executive actions taken by the Commonwealth in response to those terrorist acts. These legal changes have included the creation of specific "terrorism" offences, the legislative proscription of two foreign organisations and, most notably, a significant expansion of ASIO's investigative powers.1
Whilst the Constitution contains a number of provisions and principles protective of civil liberties, in most instances they cannot resist government action expressly aimed at curtailing or infringing individual rights and freedoms. To this end, steps ought to be taken to strengthen existing institutions and mechanisms capable of providing meaningful civil rights scrutiny of government legislation. The comment begins with an examination of the close historical and legal parallels that exist between the present day and the Cold War era and suggests how the High Court might interpret the defence power should a terrorist attack occur on Australian soil. It concludes with a proposed reform. The reform involves vesting Ch III courts with the power to measure Commonwealth laws against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when determining a legal controversy. This may operate to secure better legislative outcomes from a civil liberties perspective without compromising the supremacy of Parliament.

Obesity and the right to sue: would you like fries with that?

There is little chance that obese customers in Australia would fare any better in a claim against fast food companies than their counterparts in the US.