Playing to the gallery: the invocation of human rights, legal actors, and outside audiences in debates on roadside drug testing in the Australian Capital Territory

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
S. Mulcahy, Kate Seear
{"title":"Playing to the gallery: the invocation of human rights, legal actors, and outside audiences in debates on roadside drug testing in the Australian Capital Territory","authors":"S. Mulcahy, Kate Seear","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2082697","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Roadside drug testing (‘RDT’) was introduced in the Australian Capital Territory (‘ACT’) through a private member’s Bill that was fiercely debated in the ACT parliament. It was the first RDT scheme in Australia subject to human rights scrutiny, and thus parliamentarians had to weigh road safety arguments against human rights considerations in determining whether the proposed measures were proportionate. This paper focuses on the debate over RDT in the ACT parliament, how human rights and safety concerns figure, and how legal actors and ‘outside audiences’ are invoked. The debate was marked by frequent appeals to family members present in the public gallery and legal actors such as the Chief Police Officer, the Human Rights Commissioner, and socio-legal experts outside the chamber. Drawing from cultural legal studies scholarship on legal insiders and outside audiences in legal proceedings, this paper analyses how these stakeholders figure in human rights debates on RDT, and with what effects. The paper argues that the invocation of outside audiences reflects what Crawley and Tranter term ‘a need to bring the human back’ but cautions that this humanising process only brings some humans in, and therefore connects human rights to only certain human lives in certain ways.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2082697","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Roadside drug testing (‘RDT’) was introduced in the Australian Capital Territory (‘ACT’) through a private member’s Bill that was fiercely debated in the ACT parliament. It was the first RDT scheme in Australia subject to human rights scrutiny, and thus parliamentarians had to weigh road safety arguments against human rights considerations in determining whether the proposed measures were proportionate. This paper focuses on the debate over RDT in the ACT parliament, how human rights and safety concerns figure, and how legal actors and ‘outside audiences’ are invoked. The debate was marked by frequent appeals to family members present in the public gallery and legal actors such as the Chief Police Officer, the Human Rights Commissioner, and socio-legal experts outside the chamber. Drawing from cultural legal studies scholarship on legal insiders and outside audiences in legal proceedings, this paper analyses how these stakeholders figure in human rights debates on RDT, and with what effects. The paper argues that the invocation of outside audiences reflects what Crawley and Tranter term ‘a need to bring the human back’ but cautions that this humanising process only brings some humans in, and therefore connects human rights to only certain human lives in certain ways.
在画廊播放:在澳大利亚首都地区关于路边毒品检测的辩论中,人权、法律行为者和外部观众的呼吁
摘要澳大利亚首都领地通过一项私人议员法案引入了路边药物测试(RDT),该法案在澳大利亚首都领地议会进行了激烈辩论。这是澳大利亚第一个受到人权审查的RDT计划,因此议员们在确定拟议措施是否相称时,必须权衡道路安全论点与人权考虑。本文重点讨论了ACT议会中关于RDT的辩论,人权和安全问题是如何出现的,以及法律行为者和“外部受众”是如何被援引的。辩论的特点是经常向公众席上的家庭成员以及警察局长、人权专员和会议厅外的社会法律专家等法律行为者发出呼吁。本文借鉴法律诉讼中法律内部人和外部受众的文化法律研究学术成果,分析了这些利益相关者在RDT人权辩论中的作用及其影响。该论文认为,外部受众的调用反映了克劳利和特兰特所说的“让人类回归的必要性”,但警告说,这种人性化的过程只会让一些人回归,因此在某些方面,人权只与某些人的生命联系在一起。
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
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