These laws are enacted by governments with the process of criminalisation, where certain types of deviant behaviour are made unlawful. The regulation of social conflict through the action & sanctions of the state is the most obvious form of social control. The states role is as an agent of the form of social control is closely connected to the concepts of authority & legitimacy. In the first few centuries in places like Australia, the criminal justice system served two purposes. The first is instrumental, the state responds to crime to secure benifits of the wider society such as crime prevention & crime reduction.
These include that it’s not available in all areas, not available to serious offence, such as rape and murder and it’s also not available to previous custodial sentences servers. Whilst Forum Sentencing is available for European Australians, Circle Sentencing is set up for Indigenous Australians. Circle Sentencing is very similar to Forum Sentencing, except it is for Adult Aboriginal offenders are sentenced by their community. Circle sentencing is also based on Aboriginal Customary Law and more traditional indigenous forms of dispute resolution, it also has the full sentencing powers that a court does. A clear example for Circle Sentencing is shown in the article “Sentencing innovation breaking vicious circle of jail terms” (SMH 15/5/03) where it states “it has been so successful that the NSW Attorney-General, Bob Debus, has said circle sentencing will start in Dubbo next month.
Fighting for the rights and privileges to possession, use and enjoyment to their own traditional land, winning the case proved extremely beneficial for the Meriam people of Australia as it was recognition of social equality and fairness. The denial of the traditional rights of the Indigenous Australians was a ‘unjust and discriminatory doctrine of that kind (which) can no longer be accepted” according to Justice Brennan. It was a significant alteration of the legal, political and social relations between Non- Indigenous people and Indigenous people, acknowledging that there was a continuing connection to the Indigenous people and their land. The High Court of Australia’s decision changed the basic principles for the whole nation, recognising that native title can accommodate and be extinguished, can be by either the Crown or Indigenous people as well as compensation can be given. The outcome resulted in a campaign against the newly-established land rights of Indigenous Australians which also changed Australia’s legal system
This postcolonial idea is emphasised when the indigenous people are considered sub-human and among the wildlife (“Government of Western Australia, Fisheries, Forestry, wildlife and Aborigines”). This categorisation of the Aboriginal people by the British settlers highlights their inner belief that they are the superior race. In addition to this, the Europeans assumed that the Aboriginals were unclean and uncivilised human beings which is seen when Mr Neville states “I was a little concerned to see so many dirty little noses” and forces them out of their homes to Moore River as a result of a false scabies epidemic. The irony in this movement is that the majority of Aboriginals were healthy and, through the colonising power handed over to the settlers, they also reduced the rations of soap given to the Aboriginals. The first Australians were labelled savages, less than human, by the colonising British settlers who forcibly took over
Alec Kurger & Ors; George Ernest Bra & Ors v. Commonwealth of Australia In the case of Alec Kruger & Ors; George Ernest Bray & Ors v. Commonwealth of Australia, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, a declaration that the provisions of the 1918 Aboriginals Ordinance were invalid. They contended that the ordinance was contrary to an implied constitutional right to freedom from any law or executive act that, among other things, constituted or authorized the crime of genocide. In support of their case they cited several provisions contained within the Genocide Convention, which they argued were violated by the Aboriginals Ordinance. These included: 1. The removal and transfer of children of a racial or ethnic group in a manner which was calculated to bring
World War II (1939-1945) led Australians to fight for their rights and freedom, and whilst the wars overseas were coming to an end, Aboriginal Australians were still denied basic rights and freedom, yet living in their own country. Although there were government policies that expressed that all Australians must be viewed alike in their attitudes and customs, aboriginal people were still discriminated in all levels. They were expected to assimilate and blend in with the new 'White' Australia. It was very difficult for the aboriginal people to blend into the British community, the reason being that both aboriginals and the British had not much in common, including: Cultures, values, way of living etc. In the other hand, there were also discrimination
However, these dominant versions work to silence or marginalize particular groups in Australian society. These groups include non-Anglos, women and the indigenous people. On the other hand, the Secret River and ‘We are Going’ challenge the conventional settlement, and foreground the ‘secret river’ of violence and bloodshed which occurred during the forceful takeover of the land. The two texts similarly employ the representations of people, places, events and things to construct a resistant reading. The people featured in both the novel and the poem are employed by the authors to support their resistant
Though only fifty years ago, the post WWII ear held an immensely different set of rights and freedoms for indigenous people. From settlement to 1950, Aboriginals were considered little more than “part of the landscape.” Indeed, paternalistic attitudes through the Policy of Protection ensured that they were not counted in the Australian census, instead considered fauna. These attitudes and the rights and freedoms corresponding to them have been altered by the gradual policy changes between WWII and the present era. In 1950, the policy of Assimilation was introduced- the first step away from the restrictive policy of protection. Assimilation was completely culturally insensitive- in fact, the purpose of assimilation was to eradicate and Aboriginal culture or language through a forced induction
Upon arriving in Australia, European explorers and ultimately the European settlers that followed must have been very curious and intrigued when they came across the indigenous population of Australia that had such a contrasting and different culture from their own. The social structures of Australian Aboriginal society was unique to the landscape in which they lived and also to the evolutionary stage that their civilization had reached. The status that Aboriginal women held in their society must have been especially puzzling as Europeans came across such contrasting treatment towards women by the male members of their society. There have been documented instances where Europeans witnessed women being treated inhumanly by other member of
For example, even though individuals may want to be defined by their own individual actions, they tend to be defined by the actions of those who conform to group identities. Internationally, Australians tend to be defined by Boganism because Bogan’s are among the few people who want to define themselves as Australian. Just as a molehill is a king on a flat landscape, in the absence of alternative Australian identities, the Bogan’s have a monopoly on what it means to be an Australian. In short, social policy has been written on the basis that the Australian identity exists and Bogan’s simply filled the empty void. They might only comprise 10% of the population, but they perhaps comprise 90% of the imagery used to describe the Australian stereotype.