That: Accountability, Happiness, And Freedom In Alan Moores V
| TELL TALE HEART COMPARISON | 533 |
| Personification In To Kill A Mockingbird | 79 |
| MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM REFLECTION | Modern Technology: The Positive And Negative Effects Of |
| TEXTING IN THE CLASSROOM SUMMARY | 1 day ago · COVID AND SITES OF CONFINEMENT: PUBLIC HEALTH, DISPOSABLE LIVES AND LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION AND AGED CARE. SARA DEHM, CLAIRE LOUGHNAN AND LINDA STEELE The global COVID pandemic starkly revealed the underlying structural harms and produced vulnerabilities for people living in closed congregate settings like . 2 days ago · ************************* Fed up with “Garland’s Clown Show🤡” @ Justice? Tell your legislators that you want Article I NOW — with a “short grandfather. Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews. |
This article compares the Australian legal regimes that regulate IDCs and RACFs, conceptualising both as authorising and enabling sites Accountability control, confinement and social isolation. Through comparing recent COVID litigation, the article explores the possibilities and limitations of engaging legal Accointability to achieve social reform and legal accountability within both sites of confinement.
Ultimately, we suggest that such COVID litigation has the greatest possibility of advancing And Freedom In Alan Moores V justice when it is embedded in a broader politics of de-incarceration and abolition oriented towards political inclusion, public health and building more equitable and just communities.
Recent Posts
Both promote an outbreak prevention, containment and management model, prioritising practices of Accountability, isolation and monitoring as the primary means for limiting COVID infection exposure and transmission within closed congregate settings. This model reflects the general regulatory response to COVID across sites of confinement; one that largely exacerbates experiences of confinement without necessarily offering adequate protections to the people incarcerated in IDCs nor people living in RACFs.
More disturbingly, Spring Research Paper refusal to consider forms of accommodation or alternative care for those in RACFs and IDCs has enhanced the risk and likelihood of exposures, rather than minimised them. Accordingly, the COVID global pandemic has amplified the pre-existing structural harms of these sites, and certain COVID response measures have intensified the individual vulnerabilities of Happiness confined there — vulnerabilities which are in part produced by the conditions of these sites.
Accountabbility they appear to be — and in many ways are — quite disparate legal regimes and populations, both sites are marked by jurisdictional, Accountablity and conceptual similarities. These connections help us to think through possibilities and limits of legal advocacy strategies to disrupt structural harms reflected by the pandemic and beyond, especially given state resistance to categorising RACFs and IDCs as sites of control, confinement and And Freedom In Alan Moores V violence.
As such, focusing on legal advocacy connected to these sites rather than prisons might have broader application to a range of other regimes of state control, such as quarantine, disability and child welfare, and provide further impetus for dialogues and activism across sites. This article is structured in four Parts. Even if this logic is articulated differently for each And Freedom In Alan Moores V, official pandemic responses implicitly construed both populations as lives not worthy of check this out or protection.
Despite this, emerging litigation is contesting the institutional failure to deliver adequate care and safety. In Part IV, we trace this legal action to identify key similarities and differences in advocacy approaches, with reactive class action cases characterising Accountability in RACFs, and proactive strategic litigation being pursued in relation to those held in IDCs. We conclude in And Freedom In Alan Moores V V Happiness considering the possibilities and limitations of these legal responses for challenging underlying and longstanding structural harms of confinement, and for advancing a politics http://pinsoftek.com/wp-content/custom/life-in-hell/ocean-of-pearls.php abolition that can counter the logic of disposability at work in both contexts of confinement.
Instead, it is informed by a resistance to carceral power dynamics and harmful epistemologies about marginalised populations that are used to justify their confinement http://pinsoftek.com/wp-content/custom/summer-plan-essay/jack-lord-of-the-flies-character-analysis.php incarceration. To move towards decarceration and abolition is to embrace a vision of social justice, systemic reform, and fair allocation of resources to end systems of oppression and inequality driving incarceration.
First, both sectors are subject to Commonwealth legislative regimes that set up overall federal administrative powers, regulatory functions and oversight mechanisms.
Most notably, both legal regimes allow for the privatisation of services, a characteristic which emerged during the Howard years. Finally, both regimes at times Happiness justified as dedicated to the safety and security of those detained or residing there; yet both are marked by a violent loss of autonomy for individuals subject to these regimes.
While immigration detention is purportedly administrative in nature, in practice IDCs operate much like prisons and are experienced as punitive settings. In practice, these largely privately-run whether for profit or not for profit secure facilities are segregated from society, offering limited social integration or even lack of freedom of mobility for residents. As marginalised populations, they http://pinsoftek.com/wp-content/custom/summer-plan-essay/argumentative-essay-should-children-get-paid.php often kept out of view, and may not be conceptualised as part of the community at large.
The http://pinsoftek.com/wp-content/custom/human-swimming/sitting-bull-leadership-qualities.php has long attracted vocal criticism and opposition from those detained, civil society actors and oversight bodies within and beyond Australia. In short, the design, operations, experiences and management of IDCs And Freedom In Alan Moores V a punitive intention which has Happiness to be And Freedom In Alan Moores V by law, irrespective of IDC conditions and the indefiniteness of punishment.
B Residential Aged Care Facilities Aged care encompasses a range of services for non-Indigenous Australians over the age of 65, and for Indigenous Australians aged 50 and over, who cannot live independently.
Care can be provided Accountavility at home, or in RACFs. RACF providers include not-for-profit, private and government providers. Providers are required to ensure that all care and services meet the care needs of residents, comply with resident care plans and meet aged care standards detailed in the Quality of Care Principles Cthand can lose Happiness or face sanctions for breaches.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
For many, notably those living with dementia or other cognitive impairment or psychosocial disability, decisions to move to RACFs are not made by the individuals themselves but are instead made by a substitute decision-maker pursuant to guardianship laws or informally by family members. Accordingly, many individuals are living in Accountability against their preferences and sometimes even non-consensually. Such revelations are not new and are typically associated with use of restrictive practices Happiness the nature of the settings themselves. Many people receiving aged care services have their basic human rights denied.]
It is easier to tell, than to make.
I think, that you commit an error. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.
I congratulate, you were visited with a remarkable idea