Ficial Version Of The Law Is Not A True Reflection Of Its Meaning

Today, discrimination is still happening in Australia. Countless articles have been published to show the amount of disrespect towards Indigenous people, mainly because of how different they are to us. But in the end, everyone deserves to be treated equally, not unfairly.

Their native land was taken from them, and this led to an increase in Aboriginal activism. Protest groups like the Aborigines' Progressive Association and the Freedom Rides were formed. It wasn’t until 1962 that the commonwealth electoral act that began in 1918 was amended so that all Indigenous Australian could vote, and only in 1965 were Aboriginals finally granted the entitlement to full wages. (Skwirk, 2007). This impacted them in many ways us they were denied equal right for so long. ‘I want a Little Fair Play if you will be so kind enough to see on my Behalf’ (http://www.abc.net.au/civics/democracy/struggle.htm, 2001). This was from one of the many letters by John Kickett to parliament in his fight for aboriginal rights.

After many years of European settlement in Australia, many Aboriginal people had been removed from their families and placed into schools with white Australians. This was due to the ‘protection policy’ laws that encouraged the removal of Indigenous children. Because fewer indigenous children were able to learn about their own culture, there was a slow decline in the culture of the indigenous people. As a result of this, there were continued tensions between the free settlers and Indigenous people as they had no roles in the government and couldn’t vote. This made them feel as if they were excluded from greater society and had long term negative impacts upon their sense of belonging to the new

Aboriginal persons in Canada have been facing oppression ever since colonization began. Even when Canada gained independence from the British Empire, the oppression continued and still goes on today. One major contributing factor to the oppression of Aboriginal people in Canada is the actions taken by the Government. The Government of Canada has in fact mistreated and found to be partaking in wrongdoing when dealing with the Aboriginal population in this country. With this ugly truth being revealed, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission had to be tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past. (cite)

The Indian Act was a challenge by the Canadian government to adjust the aboriginals into the Canadian culture including bring in residential schools, separating every First Nations in trying to “improve”, and practice them for standard society (Emberley, 2009). First Nations people were also not allowed to possess any land or offer the land that used to be theirs before the Indian act as this segregation put limits maintaining or even owning anything (Emberley, 2009). This lead to the point on everything being restricted for the First Nations including losing history, practicing

Firstly, Aboriginals have been run out of their native lands and what little they have left is constantly being fought over by the Natives, the government and major corporations. Mr. Norman Slotkin, a lawyer for the Union of Ontario Indians, had this to say:

For several hundreds of years, Aboriginals have been impacted by the Indian Act in many ways. They have dealt with numerous challenges that have changed their lives forever. Laws were created by the Canadian government with the purpose of controlling Natives and assimilating them into Canadian culture.For multiple years,

In the early 1890’s, protectionism gave way to state and commonwealth government regimes of segregation. In the development of the constitution, politicians included sections specifically excluding Indigenous Australians, such as the white Australia policy, ensuring that racism became entrenched in the new nation’s future. Reserves and missions were set up far from white settlements, to exclude and control Indigenous Australians, especially those of mixed descent (Hampton & Toombs, Racism, colonisation/colonialism and impacts on indigenous people, 2013).

The article “The Great White Way” by Debra J. Dickerson attempts to show her readers that “Race is an arbitrary system for establishing hierarchy and privilege” (68) in America. In her article, Dickerson questions how “whiteness” leads America in our culture and society and how all the other races are defined in America. She also explains how history has divided whites from non-whites in America. The intended audience that Dickerson’s essay gravitated towards are political or liberal Americans. In her article “The Great White Way”. Debra J. Dickerson powerfully argues that race is an overall way to establish social classes and who and what get special privileges because of their certain race or skin color. Dickerson argues that “Race is

When you think of discrimination, many words may appear in your head, but I know for me personally, racism is the first. Racism is the belief that one or many races are more superior than another. Racism usually involves negative acts of hatred towards the people of the ‘inferior’ race. Genocide is the deliberate act of systematic extermination of a mass number of people in a particular race or ethnic group. The effects of discrimination on the Indigenous people of Australia is not just

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

Stare decisis “to let the decision stand” operates in a pyramid-type fashion and is the doctrine that judicial decisions stand as precedent for cases arising in the future. It is a fundamental policy of our law that, except in unusual circumstances, a court’s determination on a point of law will be followed by courts of the same or lower rank in later cases presenting the same legal issue, even though different parties are involved and any years have elapsed.

Human rights are the rights of humans, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or religion. We should all have this in common as we are all part of humanity. However, Indigenous people did not always have these rights (Ag.gov.au, 2015). Aside from basic human rights, Indigenous people also have their own rights specific to their culture. Before 1967, Indigenous people had different rights in different states and the Australian federal government did not have any jurisdiction over Aboriginal affairs until Australia’s constitution was amended for this purpose in 1967 (Moadoph.gov.au, 2015). Between 1900 and the present time, there have been significant changes to the rights of Indigenous Australians. The effects of the European Settlement on the Indigenous people of Australia have been devastating. When white people began arriving in Australia, the Aboriginal people believed them to be ghosts of ancestor spirits. However, once they realised the settlers were invading their land, the Aborigines became, understandably, hostile (Slater & Parish, 1999, pp.8-11). In 1788, the total Indigenous population was believed to be between 750,000 and one million. By 1888, the Indigenous population was reduced to around 80,000 Australia wide (Korff, 2014). The three main reasons for this dramatic decline were the introduction of new diseases, violent conflicts with the colonisers, and settlers acquiring Indigenous land (Digital, 2015). In 1848, the Board of National Education stated that it

“Most of the rights can be exercised by any legal person, but few of the rights belong exclusively to citizens of Canada”. (Reference8). With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Canadian society has a clear view of human rights and freedoms, and ways to enforce these rights. If the laws or governments action violates our Charter, we have the right to ask the court to address this. “At first Canada was able to take in the disrespectful and racist actions towards us Canadians” (Reference9), also we could be imprisoned without a good reason. But when the Charter stepped in, the government or the police must have a good reason or consent from the court to take actions against us. Meaning because of the Charter the government or police cannot harm us Canadians till they have a valid reason or consent from court. Part of our rights is to have a fair and a quick public trial by an impartial court to prove us either innocent or guilty of our crime. “The Indian Act of 1876 affected first nations who had concluded treaties with Canada’s government “. (Reference10) also they banned traditional ceremonies and the people needed the government’s permission to wear traditional clothes. Later on when the charter was introduced to the Constitution, those problems were fixed. Lastly women weren’t allowed to vote till 1920, because of Canada’s Election Act which banned women from

Over the past years, Canadian courts have repeatedly urged that aboriginal title conflicts should be resolved through negotiation, rather than litigation. The primary reason being that litigation is costly and time-consuming. For example, the decision for the Delgamuukw case took a duration of thirteen years. Furthermore, litigations that deal with the issue of aboriginal rights and title are “generally narrowly focused” and “ultimately leaves the question [posed about] how aboriginal rights and title apply unwarned.” For instance, the courts of Canada repeatedly failed to come up with a clear definition on the legal scope of Aboriginal rights despite the fact that they have several opportunities to do so. The Delgamuuku case clearly illustrates this when the Court “did not define how aboriginal title applied for the First Nations involved.” Instead, the Court came to the conclusion that a new trial was required, which ultimately will be more expensive and take longer.