In the 20 years following the release of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody (RCIADIC) report, little change has happened to address Indigenous social disadvantage in the criminal justice system. One of the main conclusion reached by the RCIADIC was that the over-representation of Indigenous Australians was the direct result of the underlying social, economic and culture disadvantage (Human Rights Commission, 2001). Indigenous Australians are still more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to live in low income households, be unemployed and to have poor health and education outcomes (ABS, 2008). These issues are largely intergeneration, with these many of these social disadvantages compounding over time. The most frightening …show more content…
Whilst, Mrs Whyte presented the issue fairy and appropriately with a good understanding of the underlying issue of social disadvantage, however, it lacked a sense of urgency and passion for the issue. Bob Gosford’s article “Is the NT’s paperless arrest scheme a new “Hallmark of Tyranny”” (2015), is a great contrast to the opinions presented in mainstream media and is highly critical of the points made by such news outlets as the Sunday Territorian as well as the Attorney General, John Elferink. Gosford uses the ideological framework of social disadvantage to propel other ideals of self determination and liberalism in order to counter act the strong views of neo-colonialism and paternalism held by policy makers. Within this article there is a strong sense of pride and will power to combat these fundamental ideological issues. By using the quotation from the case of Donaldson v Broomby (1981), the reader truly grasps a true understanding Gosford’s passion for the issue and identifies the truly devastating effects of social disadvantage Indigenous Australians face within the criminal justice
This alienation from the community is leading Aboriginal women to experience violence because they are not being protected by the community. This is alarming because today at least three quarters of Aboriginal women are experiencing family violence and the mortality rate for Aboriginal women due to violence is three times higher for Aboriginal women than none Aboriginal women (ibid 23). The Indian Act is a direct result of why Indian women are experiencing increased violence and being attacked because the Indian Act is refusing women Indian status and therefore they are forced off reserves where they are unprotected by the community and frequently target for acts of violence. Aboriginal women also face higher suicide rates and sexual abuse rates which are three times higher then the national average (ibid: 23). As Aboriginal women are being exiled from the community they are being increasingly targeted for sexual violence and abuse, this increased violence is due to the Indian Act because it is not allowing women who marry non-Aboriginal men to gain Indian status and therefore they are subjected to more violent acts because they are left defenseless.
The outcome was hailed a victory for representative government, democracy, government accountability and fundamental human rights. However, perhaps the biggest social issue related to the case, the result was in essence a vindication of Indigenous and Aboriginal rights. Obvious social issues applied in the case, after all, societal prejudice against prisoners is what first spawned the Howard governments blanket ban of prisoners voting rights. However, Aboriginal issues were also called into question, as Indigenous Australians are incarcerated at a rate 13 times higher than that of non Indigenous Australians. The case also brought to light serious flaws relating to the system of representative and accountable government.
LAWS1052 Extended Case Note Assignment Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 (6 October 2015) (“Bulsey”) I. Introduction Bulsey represents the ongoing struggle of Indigenous Australians’ rights to be recognised and the importance of preventing arbitrary use of power. It highlights the potential for police to abuse their powers of arrest and emphasises that this concern is especially significant for Aborigines. Further, Bulsey deliberates intentional torts and in particular, personal injury damages and aggravated damages.
The establishment of these reserves was instrumental for the management, control and segregation of Aboriginal Australians (Hollingsworth p 101; Fozdar, Wilding & Hawkins 2008: 116). Hegarty’s own experiences of: constant supervision, segregation and separation, police escorts and patrols, physical restrictions, ‘strict discipline and unfair treatment’, and regimented structure; highlight the extent to which control and discipline were the instruments for indoctrinating the rules and regulations of the settlement (Hegarty 1999: 3,14,17,20,23,25,26,30,34,36,39,42,43, 53-55,57,58, 61,75-77,79 93,95,103,123,129,130,135,140). Moreover, reserve inmates were isolated and ’were subject to strict discipline, loss of privacy and autonomy’ (Hollingsworth 2006: 102). The basis for this oppressive regimented institutionalised racism was the intended outcome: a disciplined employable farm labourer or domestic servant; who understood the rules and therefore their position in society. (Hegarty 1999:
Dr Haneef’s detainment without charge was in direct violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) article 10 and 11. Article 10 and 11 state respectively that “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him” and “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence” . Because Dr Haneef was not given a fair trial upon his criminal charge, nor was he presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this illuminates the erosion of an individual’s right to civil liberties. These two conditions are regarded as an international human right under the United Nation’s UDHR, yet, Australia’s laws are depicted to be disregarding an individual’s civil liberties in exchange for community
[9] The authors contend that the Australian Constitution has historically been used to marginalize Indigenous Australians and that any attempts at constitutional change must be cognizant of this history. The authors argue that the current constitutional framework in Australia needs to be revised to address Indigenous issues, particularly concerning the recognition of Indigenous rights and the participation of Indigenous Australians in the political process. They contend that a First Nations Voice to Parliament and a Makarrata Commission are essential components of constitutional change in Australia. They would provide a framework for Indigenous self-determination and recognizing Indigenous
In each of those cases, laws restricting and curtailing the rights of Aboriginals under the Constitution were defended. A lot of misconceptions and controversy have risen along the positive outcomes of the referendum, as it didn’t bring the equality for Aboriginal people as it was expected. Instead it launched a “blame game” between the federal, state and the territory governments.
Sorry by Gail Jones and The Apology to the Stolen Generations speech given by Kevin Rudd are similar as they share the themes of apology, past mistreatment of Indigenous Australians, silence surrounding this mistreatment and apology. However, these ideas differ between the texts as Rudd’s speech recognizes the mistreatment, breaks the silence and offers an apology to the Indigenous community while in Sorry, there was no apology offered and the silence about the abuse of Indigenous characters remains. Sorry is set throughout the 1940s when it was the convention for the Government to abuse Indigenous peoples, which had a tremendous long-term effect on the Indigenous population and characters in Sorry. Rudd made an apology to the Indigenous peoples for their past mistreatment and its impact ‘We apologise for The laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments
These protests against the lack of human rights for Aborigines highlights that Aborigines didn’t have a relatively pleasant life under the government’s control, corroborating that the assimilation policy
This issues paper will discuss the Northern Territory Intervention; how it has greatly affected Aboriginal peoples and communities; and how it is contrary to various international Human Rights standards and principles, as well as being discriminatory in nature. It is important to note the role and obligations of social workers in understanding the Government’s intention and policies, the impact of policies on peoples and communities and the consequences of significant policy change. It is a social workers’ obligation to aim for social justice, respect and equality in society including supporting issues that assist both individuals and communities, advocating for change where appropriate, and arguing against social disadvantage. There have
Aboriginal people continue to be victimized and incarcerated at much higher rates than non-Aboriginal people. The overrepresentation of Canadian Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system is a question that has not yet been answered. This research paper will focus on the risk factors experienced by many Aboriginal people, residential school experiences, and institutional racism, and their roles in the overrepresentation of Canadian Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. The Canadian government system has tried to deal with this issue, but looking at the high rates of overrepresentation, there approach has not been successful.
The quality of living of the aboriginals were far from what was pictured and recited in the national anthem, the indigenous were in fact nowhere near to being young or free. In fact, Grant pinpointed that indigenous people generally lived a shorter life as compared to average Australians. Although the aboriginals are the minority of the country, they are a quarter of those locked up in jail. Stan Grant emphasized on the ratio of the population of indigenous people to that of the prisoners in Australia to highlight the prejudice against the aboriginals. Even the indigenous youths and children are more likely to fall victim to being jailed than to become high school
This sudden change still has an enormous effect on today’s Indigenous population. How is it fair that the oldest population of people die a decade younger than non-Indigenous Australians? The perpetuation of racism which is manifested in our society has left many Indigenous Australians in a disadvantaged position. Including through, limited access to education with adult literacy rates of just 30 percent and literacy rates of children under 15 more than 48 percent lower than non-Indigenous Australians, consequently means lower educational achievement rates and higher unemployment rates of 17.2 percent compared to 5.5 percent for non-Indigenous Australians (Australian Bureau of Statistics , 2013 ). These facts must be recognised to ensure real equality and a fair-go for Indigenous people.
Historically the highest risk factor of domestic violence followed colonization (Brownridge 2008, p. 355). The loss of history and way of life has caused violence against the Aboriginal women to become normalized through the pathway of poverty, lack of education, substance abuse, and the european worldview. When comparing the violence ratio of Aboriginal woman and non-Aboriginal women the Aboriginal female has an eight time greater chance to be a target of violence such as spousal homicide and severe abuse (Brownridge, 2003, p.66). Aboriginal women were noted to have a significantly higher rate of violent victimization in comparison to a non-aboriginal females. Statistics showed that one quarter of aboriginal women will have experienced partner violence in comparison to only 8% of non-Aboriginal women (Brownridge, 2008, p. 355).
Australia is known as a country of freedom and fairness, however many groups such as youth, the unemployed, aged, and ethnic groups tend to become marginalised because of their minority status. Certain groups are marginalised because they are perceived as being different or undeserving of equality in society. This is called stereotyping and it leads to prejudice and discrimination. This essay explores three marginalised groups and discusses some of the reasons why they are marginalised and the effects on those within these groups. Exclusion from areas such as employment and other services and opportunities that other Australian 's take for granted, is a result of the marginality of indigenous Australian 's, woman, and those with