Human Rights Of Indigenous People In Australia

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

During the Multiculturalism act, aboriginals occupancy and experience was contributed and cultural identity was established in Canada. Many non-aboriginals started writing about native elements. Human rights were

The rights and freedoms of Aboriginal people have changed significantly during the 20th century after facing many years of neglect and inequalities. In that time, change in indigenous rights and freedoms was brought about as a result of government policies, political activism and legal changes.

Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the

Assess the impact of the Australian Aboriginal League in improving the rights and freedoms of Aboriginals in Australia

For the native title act to become seen as a law there where particular rules that must stay intact. This peoples right and interests to be possessed and recognised under the traditional laws currently acknowledged

Indigenous governance is filled with legislations and amendments that began with the Royal proclamation act of 7th October 1763. Since then, there has been a massive effort to civilize the indigenous population in order to integrate them with the non-indigenous population by the government of Canada. The main purpose of such a congress is debated till date.

The First Nations people of Canada have a long list of treaty rights, as well as many undefined aboriginal rights, from their right to hunt and fish on their land to housing and annuities. However, it’s not all gift-giving and sunshine; while the government of Canada is supposed to respect their rights to hunt on their land and the right to hold title to their land, there are many disputes such as the Ron Sparrow case and the Oka Crisis that show that the Aboriginal peoples’ inherent rights are not always respected, with cases such as that of Don Marshall that show that the government might not exactly be on the First Nation’s side.

‘Outline the significance of key developments in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ struggles for rights and freedoms’.

Joffe, P., Hartley, J., & Preston, J. (2010). Realizing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Triumph, hope, and action. Saskatoon: Purich Pub.

Aboriginal women of Canada have struggled since 1967 to have their right to identity and their civil and political rights recognized. Part of this battle included changing century-old provisions in the Indian Act which banished women from their families and communities by forcing them to give up their Indian status, Band membership, and, essentially, their identity as Aboriginal women if they married outside their race (Leslie and Macguire 25).(f.1) The Tory government amended the Indian Act in June 1985 through Bill C-31. Aboriginal women 's struggle continues, however, as some Indian Chiefs are trying to overturn the amendments in court, claiming they interfere with their jurisdiction to determine membership in their own communities. It is my position that the civil and political rights of Indian women are fundamental human rights, and that they are Aboriginal rights which are now recognized under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.(f.2) These rights have never be extinguished and they continue to exist.

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.

According to the Cornell University Law School’s ‘Legal Information Institute’, self-determination ‘denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order’. As a major concept of international law, self-determination gives people the right to control their own fates under certain fundamental criteria, and can be claimed by a minority that bases its lifestyle on an ethnic identity that is distinguishable from regular society, with a strong desire for cultural preservation. It has been considered to be a framework with the ability to guide legislative reforms within Australia, with an underlying ‘rights- based’ approach to Indigenous Issues. Self-determination is considered to be an important aspect of the legal system in regards to Indigenous Peoples, as it provides them a process of choice, to guarantee the practice of Indigenous social, cultural and economic needs.

In the peer-reviewed journal, “Indigenous Peoples and Multicultural Citizenship: Bridging Collective and Individual Rights,” Cindy L. Holder and Jeff J. Corntassel discuss the revaluation, problems, and restrictions of existing human rights instruments while examining the liberal-individualist and corporatist perspectives. This journal was written in response to the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was “ …. a milestone for universal legal protection of individuals” (Holder and Corntassel 126). When the existing human right means were reexamined due to the anniversary, there were several problems that arose. First, there is the absence of promoting universal acceptance of group rights when compared to

Human Rights Commission (2015) ‘UN Decade on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’. Retrieved from: https://www.hrc.co.nz/your-rights/indigenous-rights/our-work/decade-rights-indigenous-peoples/