Australia got involved in Vietnam in an attempt to stop the spread of communism in South Vietnam and protect is position in the Asian Pacific; this is a key event in Australia’s history as it changed the course of Australia’s allegiances and almost lead to warfare on Australian soil. Though relating cause and effect by using numerous historical sources I will assess the key reasons why Australia got involved in the Vietnam War. Robert Menzies parliament address in 1965, an article from The Conversation describing the events 50 years later as well as multiple extracts from “Contested Spaces” by Thomas Cantwell and key extracts from the History textbook all illustrate the main reasons why Australia was keen to get involved in the war in South
Australia’s international relationships had a significant impact in World War 2, and this was because of Australian’s security was threatened by Japan, because Australia was sacred of Britain not doing a great job helping us against Japan, so there was one chance to save them and that was to call America for help. When a number of Australian troops returned from the Middle East after John Curtin ordered them to complete an action in Syria. This led to a bad relationship with the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, because Britain want Australia to help them in the war against Germany. As all Australians knew Britain were the ‘mother country’ they will help them but John Curtin went against the partnership with Britain and want to defend Australia, not send all troops to Britain. Curtin invited the Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, Douglas MacArthur to help out Australia for the Japanese invasion which made drastic change in Australia’s relation with Britain and USA.
The electoral college is a process the founding fathers established in the constitution with the intent to create a safeguard between the population and the selection of a president, and to give extra power to smaller states. However, based on the information presented in the articles the electoral college should be abolished as it violates our right of political equality, and fails to represent a third, independent, party in any election. Although there are many reasons to abolish the electoral college, the principal reason to take action would be the result of an obvious violation of our right to be politically equal. As shown in the chart provided (Doc D) 12 of the lowest populated states and the District of Columbia have almost the
Shocked and shaken by the Japanese Empire’s plans and attempts to seize control of the continent in WWII, Australians understood and feared their close proximity to Communism’s spread throughout Asia. Many Australians felt that the situation was a grave matter for the future prospects of Australia’s geopolitical standing and felt that a need to ‘draw the line’ as to how far Communism clutches could spread through the Asia-Pacific region. This doctrine of ‘Forward Defence’ (dealing with the enemy before the got too close for comfort) was highly perpetuated by anti-communist, Liberal Prime Minister Robert Menzies. These various geopolitical and trans-societal factors all play a significant role in the development of Australian military-policy and public opinion throughout the Vietnam War period. These fears and concepts may sound quite brash and juvenile from our hindsight-based, contemporary perspective, but for many Australians then, time to intervene was simply running
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. The Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 (Cth) prevalent at the time of the arrest of Dr Haneef reveals the incapabilities of Australia’s law to balance the rights of the individual
Abraham insisted that the Seminoles get separate lands from the Creeks to reduce, if not eliminate, Creek claims on the Black Seminoles being their own property. Eventually, refusal to accept the treaty also came from the company of Seminoles who traveled to the Indian Territory because they claimed they were tricked or at least forced to sign the contract under duress. With the universal rejection of the treaty, this created a situation for the federal government to enforce the treaty militarily. Fear of reprisals from the Indians who remained in Florida fueled
Unfortunately Plyer has faced two main challenges. These attempts to circumvent the ruling provided. In 1994, Proposition 187 was the rise of anti-immigration right to receive public services, such as healthcare and education. It was overturned as it was in conflict with the Plyer ruling. Again in 1996, The Illegal Immigration Reform Act at 1996 “attempted to introduce an amendment that would overturn Plyler by granting states the ability to shut out unauthorized immigrant children from public education.”(Fitz, Wolgin &, Garcia, 2012, p.
And In 1883, the Supreme Court struck down the 1875 act, ruling that the 14th Amendment did not give Congress authority to prevent discrimination by private individuals. 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.
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.
The court of appeals overturned his conviction because they thought the Stole Valor Act was unnecessary. That wasn’t the end of it. The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated.
Introduction During the 1800s to early 1900s there were many of laws realised to prevent many cultures from entering Australia. The most famous law set during this time period was the immigration restriction act which was general start of the white Australian policy. Context The white Australia policy is Australia’s attempt to keep immigration into its country stable, by restricting non Europeans especially Asians from immigrating into Australia. The beginning of the white Australia policy could have started around the 1850s, when white miners would treat the Chinese miners unfairly. In 1851 the gold rush starts in New South Wales and Victoria which results in big migration from the South Sea Islands, British, Europe, china and America.
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: This affects contemporary issues because it was only in 1992 with Australia’s “Mabo” case that Indigenous
Jackson is basically lying saying it will enable them to pursue happiness in their own way but the natives didn’t get there own way since the US signed the treaty of New Echota that took away the land. The natives were constantly fighting back against there removal. In the Cherokee letter protesting the treaty the stated, "The instrument in question is not the act of our nation; we are not parties to its covenants; it has not received the sanction of our people." So saying it will enable them in their own way is a complete lie the government was using to make it sound like the Indian removal act was a good thing. The US never got the ok from the natives to give up the
In 1788 the Europeans landed on Australian land and changed the way that the Indigenous people did things. This essay will talk about the impact that the British had on the Aboriginal Australians from the loss of their culture and land to the violence that was inflicted onto them. The essay will also cover what the Europeans would’ve thought and how it has made the Australia that we live in today. When the Europeans settled in Australia in 1788, it resulted in Aboriginal Australians losing their culture and land. The British came and demanded that the Aboriginals stop what they’re doing and give up their land to them.