Mohammad Haneef & Erosion of Civil Liberties Weland La ‘Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties.’ Discuss this statement in light of the Haneef Case and one other issue (such as the right to silence, privacy, etc.), commenting on the extent to which the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety. In correlation with the Haneef Case, Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as demonstrated by NSW’s introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013.
Victims of racial discrimination were told to seek relief not from the Federal Government, but from the states. The last case was in 1967 this case was the loving vs Virginia. This case says that it is a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or the reverse. This says that you can not marry a person of the other race or this could be punishable.
This “unsettled” state of settler colonialism has forced Indians to take an offensive position against the US, the settler nation. Simpson specifically points to the Kahnawa’kehrò:non as an example of refusal. “Their political consciousness and actions upend the perception that colonization, elimination, and settlement are situations of the past. Kahnawa’kehrò:non are not settled; they are not done; they are not gone.” (Simpson
This old fashioned thinking which Kenny and Howard employ is shown to be divisional, as it ostracises the Indigenous population, who just like every other Australian, deserve to “proudly be themselves”, which aligns with Chris Scanlon, who contends that the “progressive side of politics need to
Mabo: The Mabo case was a judgment in the High Court of Australia in 1992 affirming that Aboriginal people could still have rights to land taken by settlers. Wik: The Wik decision was a legal judgment made in Australia in 1996 that protects the right of Aboriginal people to own land. However, it stated that Native Title could co-exist with other rights on land under pastoral lease but, if there is a conflict between Native Title and lease, the rights of the leaseholder will
In the case of Lyons v Queensland  HCA 38, Ms Lyons, who is profoundly deaf and requires assistance from Australian Language Interpreters (AUSLAN), was excluded from jury duty on the grounds of her impairment. Lyons held that her exclusion from serving on a jury was unlawful discrimination prohibited by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (QLD) (A.D.A). After being summoned for jury duty, she notified the deputy registrar that she would require the assistance of an AUSLAN.
Impact of Colonisation: Colonisation affected Aboriginal and Torres Straight islanders because they weren’t acknowledged upon colonisation as a civilized people. In 1788 the British , wrongly believed that the indigenous peoples did not have a system of land law deserving of recognition by the common law. Because of this, the English crown clamed both sovereignty and ownership of Australia (Terra Nullis- which means no ones land) and did not recognise the land previously belonging to a people because they did not see them as having a system of laws and customs concerning the land. Impact of Colonisation on Contemporary Issues: • Mabo 1992:
The assertion that the land should still belong to the Lakota because the United States violated the Fort Laramie treaty by acquiring the land without Lakota approval has been undermined however by the United States Supreme Court. In the case United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians (1980) the 8-1 ruling was that the United States’ “sole legal shortcoming was the failure to pay just compensation” for the land (Pommersheim 116). Although the land was seized using moral justifications that ranged from questionable to outright egregious, the Lakota were just as expansionist when they arrived on the land less than 100 years before (Kurkiala 449). The United States continued to honor the law however, and proposed paying $17.5 million to the Lakota as compensation for the land. The court later revised this number to $122.5 million by compounding a 5% interest annually (Churchill 135) but the Lakota response to this was that they were no more willing to take the new offer than the old one.
No matter what changes are made, as long as their skin colour isn’t pure white, they will never be regarded as “Australian”. This puts stress on the requirement for migrants to completely dispose of their own identity for an “Australian” identity. The fact that the protagonist claims that he or she has provided the migrants with equality is also ironic. “Learn English to Distinguish ESL from RSL”, the utilisation of assonance and internal rhyme
Douglas point out that cases like Francis v. Resweber and Robinson v. California are examples of case being settled from due process ban of cruel and unusual punishment, which forbids the judicial system of imposing by the legislature. He believes that this type of punishment is targeting people from different race, religion, social position, and/or class. There is evidence that the provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, from which the language of the Eighth Amendment was taken, was concerned primarily with selective or irregular application of harsh penalties, and that its aim was to forbid arbitrary and discriminatory penalties of a severe
We are one, but we are many These lyrics from Bruce Woodley’s iconic song ‘I am Australian’ encapsulate the essence of the Australian identity: unity, equality and a fair go for all. However, underneath the surface of our seemingly egalitarian society, the statement ‘we are many’ is the only one that remains. We are a nation divided. Divided by the historic mistreatment of the first inhabitants of our land.
Through the case of Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott , the court was able to define hate speech and determined that the flyers William Whatcott created and distributed were not protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The information on the flyers were inaccurate, and caused both social and direct harm to the individuals it targeted. This case is similar in nature to the R v Butler  case as it focuses on freedom of expression and involves material that the public found offensive. Although similar, we are able to see through the outcome how society has progressed and changed throughout the years. The pamphlets in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott  do not display the level of tolerance of diversity and acceptance that our society should strive to
Although there are over 5000 indigenous communities around the world, the global responsibility to protect the indigenous is not being realized, since Indigenous communities still suffer socio-economical disadvantages, marginalization, discrimination and denial of justice to a certain extent. This is evident throughout the world, in nations such as Australia and Canada, which pride themselves on their nations freedom, equality and safely. Australia despite being a first world nation has immensely failed at protecting it’s indigenous population, most notably it’s Indigenous youth, since over 80% of youth suicides in 2010 were of young Aborigines. Early intervention is the key to protecting Aborigines, as commented by Social Justice Minster,
3.4.17 What does the constitution say about birthright citizenship: Professor Edward edlard cal state – he testified before subcommittee 20 years ago, the framers of the constitution, the civil war amendments 13,14,15. Section 5 of the 4th amendment congress can to define the jurisdiction of the united states. Congress has exercised this same authority to define the jurisdiction of the US before in 1986 and later with the immigration reform act and with the illegal immigration reform of 1996. Senator Jacob Howard wrote the 14th amendment citizenship clause he defined who would fall under the citizenship clause jurisdiction when he wrote: “Every person born within the limits of the united states and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtual