The International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

The Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) was a law that changed Indigenous Australian lives forever. The act enabled the New South Wales Board for the Protection of Aborigines to essentially control the lives of Aboriginal people. It was the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) that had major provisions that resulted in the containment and suffering that Aboriginal people endured. This suffering included the practice of forcible removing Indigenous children from their families. These major provisions help us understand what the Aborigines Protection Act 1909 (NSW) involved and the impact it has had on the daily lives and cultures of Indigenous Australian peoples today.

After that, this essay will discuss different impacts that are caused by this legislation. Firstly, the children removal issue is stilling happening among indigenous community, a large percentage of

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.

Indigenous Australians have been fighting for their civil rights since European colonisation in 1788, in particular, for their rights to land ownership. Prior to the Mabo land rights case, there was very little success when it came to indigenous Australians making claims. The Mabo case took land rights to the highest court in Australia. It succeeded in achieving land rights and overturning Terra Nullius. The Mabo case helped to continue to chip away at the barriers of civil rights. The Mabo Case was a step towards Indigenous equality.

This case and the resulting test were instrumental in defining aboriginal rights. However, it was also very controversial as it confirmed one thing: aboriginal rights are not absolute and this has been highlighted in numerous cases whereby aboriginal rights being denied.

The National Inquiry into the separation of the children concluded that 'between one-in-three and one-in-ten Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities in the period from approximately 1910 until 1970' (Wilkie, 1997). It was the 1960s, at the earliest, when the various 'protection' Acts were either abolished or discontinued.

Throughout the early 20th century, the Australian public was led to believe that Aboriginal children were disadvantaged in their communities, and that there was a high risk of physical and sexual abuse. Aboriginal children were being removed in order to be exposed to ‘Anglo values’ and ‘work habits’ with a view to them being employed by colonial settlers, and to stop their parents, families and communities from passing on their culture, language and identity

Government policies authorising the removal of Aboriginal children have caused extensive and unrepairable damage to every aspect of Indigenous culture. It could be argued that the emotional turmoil which occurred as a result of this policy, is greater than any physical abused ever faced by the Australian Aboriginal people. The act of child removal would be a scarring experience for parents and children of any race or culture. This policy had a particularly damaging impact on the Indigenous people as their identity is based within a set of strong traditional guides and teachings. These lessons are not recorded, but can only be taught through speaking with elders and learning through a connection to others within the mob, connection to art forms

There are certain areas of conflict between the Aboriginal Justice system and the Australian Law. Persons following the aboriginal customary laws if

Governments soon felt that to banish Indigenous Australians, the children needed to be removed from their family and assimilated with non-indigenous families, believing this was the best option to breed out the aboriginal race and to fit them into mainstream society.

An entire body of developed law which followed was ironically referred to as a separate, specific category of laws called AFederal Indian Law@ or ATribal Law@, or just plain A@Indian Law@. These laws and principles were designed to supplement and carry forth the true intent of the treaties, agreements and statutory enactments affecting and involving the AIndians@. However, if that true intent from the government=s perspective, was to complete the long term goal of genocide and total removal of all Indians and Indian interests, the government needed an arsenal of legal weapons to use to carry out that intent. Therefore, AIndian@ Law as a body of ALaw@, is riddled with exceptions, loopholes, clever defenses and principles, complex hidden tricks and judge-made tactical escape hatches. Whereby the government and private wealth interests, are allowed a Alegal@ avenue to circumvent any and all obligations that appeared to be negotiated or agreed to by the Native Americans. These legally created loopholes, exceptions, and devious AIndian law principles@, have been used by the government and its wealthy benefactors or resource-hungry constituents. They have been used with the knowing and willing compliance of the Courts and many judges. With the intent to divest, destroy, manipulate,

The court system has a major impact on Indigenous people and Indigenous law. Indigenous law is controlled by the rulings of the government and sets an example of government’s the priority and interest of Indigenous issues. This case resulted in major conflict between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada. Racial tension within Canada grew and it drew a line between Indigenous people and European people as well as the court. Colton Boushie’s case is an example of how society reacts to the court and racism within Canada.

These laws only applied to those of Aboriginal descent and therefore makes a good case study on the systematic oppression placed on Indigenous

In the history of Australia it has been documented that government policies were implemented to remove Indigenous children from their families. The aim to forcibly remove the children was to break connections with their family, culture and traditional land . This essay will examine Australia’s obligation in regard to these international crimes; systematic discrimination, genocide and breaching duty of care. This will be followed by the establishment of the right to reparations in Australia for violating international law. International law offers a wide range of remedies for breach of human rights law. However the weakness in Australia’s legal system makes it difficult for the victims of stolen generation to bring claim international human

There have been many significant cases that have dealt with the issue of jurisdiction. Among these cases was the Sparrow case of 1990. The Court determined that “Aboriginal Rights were constitutionally protected, and that those rights can only be extinguished with First Nations consent.” Moreover, the Court ruled that “Aboriginal rights could only be limited with justifiable reasons and that Aboriginal rights have to be interpreted in a generous and liberal manner.”