Enacting Safety and Omitting Gender: Australian Human Rights Scrutiny Processes Concerning Alcohol and Other Drug Laws

IF 2.3 Q3 SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Kate Seear, S. Mulcahy
{"title":"Enacting Safety and Omitting Gender: Australian Human Rights Scrutiny Processes Concerning Alcohol and Other Drug Laws","authors":"Kate Seear, S. Mulcahy","doi":"10.1177/00914509211065141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Global momentum for drug law reform is building. But how might such reform be achieved? Many argue that human rights offer a possible normative framework for guiding such reform. There has been very little research on whether human rights processes can actually achieve such aims, however. This paper responds to this knowledge gap. It explores how one human rights mechanism—the “parliamentary rights scrutiny process”—deals with alcohol and other drugs. We consider how four Australian parliaments scrutinized proposed new laws that would deal with alcohol and other drugs for their human rights “compatibility.” We find that laws that would limit the rights of people who use alcohol and other drugs were routinely seen as justifiable on the basis that alcohol and other drugs were inherently “unsafe.” Crucially, safety was conceptualized in a gender-neutral way, without regard to the potential role of gender, including specific masculinities, in the production of phenomena such as family violence and sexual violence and other public safety problems. Instead, such problems were regularly constituted as consequences, simply, of alcohol or other drug consumption. In making this argument, we build on the pioneering work of David Moore and colleagues (e.g., 2020). Their work asks important questions about how the causes of violence are constituted across different settings, including research and policy. Drawing on ideas from scholars such as Carol Bacchi and John Law, they identify “gendering practices” and “collateral realities” in research and policy on violence, in which the role of men and masculinities are routinely obscured, displaced or rendered invisible. We find similar problems underway within human rights law. In highlighting these gendering practices and collateral realities, we aim to draw attention to the limitations of some human rights processes and the need for more work in this area.","PeriodicalId":35813,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Drug Problems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Drug Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00914509211065141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Global momentum for drug law reform is building. But how might such reform be achieved? Many argue that human rights offer a possible normative framework for guiding such reform. There has been very little research on whether human rights processes can actually achieve such aims, however. This paper responds to this knowledge gap. It explores how one human rights mechanism—the “parliamentary rights scrutiny process”—deals with alcohol and other drugs. We consider how four Australian parliaments scrutinized proposed new laws that would deal with alcohol and other drugs for their human rights “compatibility.” We find that laws that would limit the rights of people who use alcohol and other drugs were routinely seen as justifiable on the basis that alcohol and other drugs were inherently “unsafe.” Crucially, safety was conceptualized in a gender-neutral way, without regard to the potential role of gender, including specific masculinities, in the production of phenomena such as family violence and sexual violence and other public safety problems. Instead, such problems were regularly constituted as consequences, simply, of alcohol or other drug consumption. In making this argument, we build on the pioneering work of David Moore and colleagues (e.g., 2020). Their work asks important questions about how the causes of violence are constituted across different settings, including research and policy. Drawing on ideas from scholars such as Carol Bacchi and John Law, they identify “gendering practices” and “collateral realities” in research and policy on violence, in which the role of men and masculinities are routinely obscured, displaced or rendered invisible. We find similar problems underway within human rights law. In highlighting these gendering practices and collateral realities, we aim to draw attention to the limitations of some human rights processes and the need for more work in this area.
颁布安全和不考虑性别:澳大利亚关于酒精和其他毒品法的人权审查程序
全球禁毒法改革的势头正在形成。但是如何才能实现这样的改革呢?许多人认为,人权为指导这种改革提供了一个可能的规范框架。然而,很少有关于人权进程能否真正实现这些目标的研究。本文回应了这一知识缺口。它探讨了一种人权机制——“议会权利审查程序”——如何处理酒精和其他毒品问题。我们审议了四个澳大利亚议会如何审查拟议的处理酒精和其他毒品的新法律,以确定其人权"兼容性"。我们发现,限制使用酒精和其他药物的人权利的法律通常被认为是合理的,因为酒精和其他药物本质上是"不安全的"。至关重要的是,安全的概念是不分性别的,没有考虑到性别,包括具体的男子气概,在产生诸如家庭暴力和性暴力等现象和其他公共安全问题方面的潜在作用。相反,这些问题通常被认为是酒精或其他药物消费的后果。在提出这一论点时,我们以大卫·摩尔及其同事的开创性工作为基础(例如,2020年)。他们的工作提出了一些重要的问题,即暴力的原因是如何在不同的环境中构成的,包括研究和政策。他们借鉴了卡罗尔·巴奇(Carol Bacchi)和约翰·劳(John Law)等学者的观点,确定了暴力研究和政策中的“性别实践”和“附带现实”,在这些研究和政策中,男性和男性的角色通常被模糊、取代或变得不可见。我们在人权法中也发现了类似的问题。在强调这些性别化做法和附带的现实时,我们的目的是提请注意一些人权进程的局限性以及在这一领域开展更多工作的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Drug Problems
Contemporary Drug Problems Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Contemporary Drug Problems is a scholarly journal that publishes peer-reviewed social science research on alcohol and other psychoactive drugs, licit and illicit. The journal’s orientation is multidisciplinary and international; it is open to any research paper that contributes to social, cultural, historical or epidemiological knowledge and theory concerning drug use and related problems. While Contemporary Drug Problems publishes all types of social science research on alcohol and other drugs, it recognizes that innovative or challenging research can sometimes struggle to find a suitable outlet. The journal therefore particularly welcomes original studies for which publication options are limited, including historical research, qualitative studies, and policy and legal analyses. In terms of readership, Contemporary Drug Problems serves a burgeoning constituency of social researchers as well as policy makers and practitioners working in health, welfare, social services, public policy, criminal justice and law enforcement.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信