Good morning/afternoon ladies and gentlemen, today I will be talking about David hicks and Sharpelle Corby in relation to “should rights be an automatic entitlement, or should extreme situations remove these rights. David Hicks an Australian in Guantanamo bay, because he was allegedly accused due to the fact that he returned back to Afghanistan after September 11 when the terrorist attacked the world trade centre and killed thousands of innocent people. Throughout David’s case, the Australian government declared him as a terrorist because he was found in Afghanistan. The Howard government didn’t want to release him out of the military camp or help him anyways, hicks waited 5 years before he was charged of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding enemy. I think that David should have the right to speak no matter, what circumferences he was in we are all entitle to human rights as an individual. Rights everyone should be an automatic entitlement. In context to Schapelle Corby’s case of smuggling 4 kilos of drugs, she was supported by the Australian government every step of the way in order for her to be brought back to Australia. She had the right to speak about her case and was heard before court cases. It exposes a government sacrificing the life and human rights of an innocent Australian. Where media was advertising In relating to David hicks and Schapelle Corby’s case there is a similar issues that there pair of them faced but they were both addressed in completely different aspects of entitlement. The procedural fairness that hicks was not correctly addressed with was representation, a right to know charges, to have a hearing before he went to court and the right to test evidence presented in the case ‘cross examination. As well in order for justice to be achieved in his case he didn’t have any access to legal information and the Australian government did not assist him.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document