Most if not all asylum seekers will be released into the Australian community. With the mark of distrust firmly branded into their minds. Dr Zachary Steel, Clinical Psychologist of the Psychiatry Research and Teaching Unit, University of New South Wales stated that despite all the efforts that Australia makes to detain asylum seekers, 85% of people detained in detention centres will become Australian citizens, or at least be released into the community. In the past, 97 per cent of individual applicants from Iraq and 93 per cent from Afghanistan who sought asylum without valid visas in Australia were recognized as genuine refugees. Therefore the financing of detention centres and psychological distress caused are for fruitless reasons.
After all, genocide was already forbidden under customary international law at the time that the Aboriginals Ordinance was enacted. The court, however, found difficulty here as well, this time based on problems inherent in the definition of genocide as a crime. According to the court, the transfer that the Aboriginals Ordinance authorized lacked the requisite mental element of "intent to destroy" the children's racial or ethnic group. Rather, the court held that the forcible transfers authorized by the Ordinance were intended "for the good and welfare" of the aboriginal population. The court based this interpretation on the conditions that prevailed at the time of the Ordinance's passage.
Aborigines could choose to stay where they were and fight the settlers, though soon it was obvious that spears were no match for the guns that had been brought over. The second option was to leave and risk encroaching on the land of other tribes and start fights. The final option was to stay and try to forget their Aboriginal ways and live alongside the British as one of them. Michael Connor mentions in his book "The invention of Terra Nullius" that Terra Nullius is in fact wrong and there never was the use of it when the British landed in Australia. Connor is very smug about his views of Terra Nullius and he believes there are mistakes that have been made throughout history that many historians are not aware of or choose to ignore.
The first paragraph concludes with “how dare anyone ban the carrying of the Australian national flag – especially on Australia Day?” The indignant tone highlight its irony, since that is exactly what had happened. This epiplexis also rebukes the ban and implies that symbols of belonging are an integral part of our
In the past few years there’s been a lot of controversy over whether or not modern day Australians should apologize for the past events of the stolen generation. This essay will support the statement made by John Howard which was “Modern Australians shouldn't be required to accept guilt and blame for past action.” The reasons we shouldn't have to accept guilt and blame for past actions are , we are not responsible for past actions, we directly had nothing to do with it, we are new Australians, and we have made up for our wrong by granting them their rights. The first reason as to why we should not have to apologize to the aboriginals is because we are not responsible for past action. The actions of past Australians towards the aboriginals
Although there are clear signs that moves to adopt some form of national Bill of Rights are gathering increasing momentum (see e.g. Grattan, 2007), Australia remains unique within the advanced industrialized world in lacking any such instrument. The result is a peculiar system of rights protection which makes this case of particular importance to scholars of comparative constitutionalism. PROTECTING RIGHTS WITHOUT A BILL
One difference that Australia has against the US is that it is under “The Commonwealth” whereas the US is not; this usually means quite differential laws and rights. The Australian Constitution is similar in a way to the US Constitution as it also has a form of amendments, classed as ‘Articles’ and written as chapters. The purpose of the articles is also uniquely different to the US ten amendments. One item, mentioned in the Australian Constitution that states equality and fairness of finance and trade in all Australian States is no.99 of Chapter IV (Finance and Trade); “The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof” (Parliament of Australia, 2012). Equality of a country’s states should be a legitimate law in all countries, however not all countries have this.
Not every state agrees that gay marriage is wrong and illegal, but if the federal government were to pass a amendment outlawing gay marriage then every state who allows gay marriage would have to declare it unconstitutional and against the law. This shows that the federal and state governments have different restrictions. The state government protects the people of the state but the federal government protects everything in this country. Once something is declared unconstitutional, it will over ride any state government policy. Some people have mixed emotions about the way the government works but overall the relationship between state and federal governments protect the everyday
In fact only a very small proportion of the populations are. So this is not the true identity of Australian, indeed there is no true identity of Australians that can be determined by physical appearance. All these conflicts illustrated by the two texts endorse the idea of our perception that clashes with the reality. For example, Anglo-Australians like to believe in fair-go yet so many joined the Cronulla Riots only to thump two innocent men. Similarly, this concept of prejudicial judgment is exemplified in the article Of Middle Eastern
Just Walk on By has not related to the ABC video of “No English, No Service” in any way whatsoever, in my opinion. The memoir was more detailed on wrongful discrimination in skin color and setting, while the video contained more of discrimination at the marketplace. Where ever immigrants go, they undergo discrimination, which completely contradicts America’s original purpose. In summary, Us, Americans, are ignorant and too quick on assumptions in total. We should not be labeling individuals as illegal, seeing that contradicts America’s very original purpose.