Canadian CBC News reports about concerns over the draft anti-terrorism bill that was introduced in India’s parliament following the attacks in Bombay. Doubling the amount of days of holding terror suspects without filing charges to 180, the bill is also criticised for providing police with a disproportionate leverage in conducting searches. According to the report the home minister sees an adequate balance between human rights protection and the instruments necessary to respond to the “terror.”

Part of the statement by Australiam Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:

“The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.”

The Australian government plans to make a public apology to the “stolen generation.” After years of debate, there is to be official recognition for the wrongs done to indigenous peoples.

Undealt injustices committed by a public body – no matter at what scale – have a negative impact on the human rights culture and therewith on the social fabric of a country. Many countries struggle to come to terms with such wrongs.

Obviously, there is no “right” way of getting the wrong “right.” Actually, I don’t think that there is a “right” after wrong but rather accommodation of the “wrong” through recognition. What I find interesting in the Australian debate is that – a bit like the Austrian, which, however, is not comparable – under political considerations, only part of the recognition takes place. How so? If one were to try and do this as completely as possible, as holistically as feasible, it should go like this: come up with a common history between the two sides (there is usually two distinct sides although there are obviously many shades of grey at play). That common history needs to be based on mutually agreeable facts. Truth, in essence, cannot be agreed upon; so it is publicly discussed and settled facts. That is a long, painful but very meaningful process.

Based on facts, one should try and come up with a meaningful apology. Then one may want to commence the parallel process of sustainably including the common-history into public discourse as well as addressing the marginalization of those who suffered the injustices as well as their descendants.

The need for a holistic approach to this is underestimated in most post-injustice situations, no matter what the scale. Ultimately the recognition of past wrongs is another variant of acknowledging that for everyone to enjoy and show mutual respect, their dignity has to be ensured. If there is a shadow of injustice, there is no dignity. If there is no dignity there is a violation of the sum of human rights.