Fight for Native Title: Mabo’s case triumphs Mabo v Queensland (no.2) 1992 On June 3rd 1992, five Murray Islanders home to the Torres Strait Islands in Australia held a legal action against the Government of Queensland in order to claim recognition of the rights to the use, enjoyment and occupancy of their traditional land which had been stolen off them prior to the annexation by the defending government. The judgments made by the High Court of Australia, initiated the legal doctrine of ‘native title’ into the Australian law, which was in favour of the plaintiffs bringing the case to court. This recognized that the Indigenous Australians did in fact have ownership to the possession of the land that was referred to as “terra nullius”, nobody’s
Explain how Malo Law exercised by the tribal council was integrated with Queensland State Law resulting in Eddie’s exile. Watch the interviews with Jimi Bani (as Eddie) and Rob Carlton (as Paddy Killoran). Q6. As a young man working in northern and outback Queensland, Eddie Koiki Mabo witnessed and experienced racism and inequality. He dedicated his life to fighting for recognition and equality for Indigenous Australians.
The 1975 Constitutional crisis of Australia is arguably the most significant political event of the period of 1945 to 1990. It arose during the Whitlam governments’ time in office from 1972 to 1975. The crisis saw the breaking of many political conventions that served to uphold the effectiveness of the political system and culminated with the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s dismissal by Sir John Kerr. At the time the crisis shook the very foundations of Australia’s political system, however it is argued that, with better management of the key factors that were influential during the crisis years by those involved, the crisis itself could have been avoided almost entirely. The years of the Constitutional Crisis are pockmarked with numerous short-comings and failures, mainly perpetuated by the key political figures involved in the crisis.
The Aboriginal communities presented petitions to challenge the Act concerning the Aboriginal land and resources rights. They also wanted to be part of the leadership of the country from which they were alienated from for decades. The government usually responded by enacting very harsh legislative measures and amendments to the Indian Act and prevented the communities from hiring any lawyers to challenge the Aboriginal rights in the court. With the continued uprising of Aboriginal political organizations and protests in the 1960s, a proposal was drafted, the white paper, which proposed that the Indian reserves should be eliminated and the collective rights of the status Indians should be replaced with greater integration of the Canadian community. In 1969, the government agreed to look over and discuss the specific claims and recommendations voiced over by the Indigenous
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
All indigenous Australians became subject to the provisions of the “Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the sale of Opium Act 1897 (Qld)”, (referred to hereafter as The 1897 Act). By reading “Is that you Ruthie”, you will get an understanding of why, The 1897 Act attributed to a lasting legacy of trauma and disadvantage affecting Indigenous Australians. The passing of this bill enabled the colonial government of Queensland to control every aspect of Indigenous Australians` lives. It gave the Protectors of Aboriginals in Queensland the legal right to dictate where Aboriginals could live, where they could work, who they could marry, how they spent their wages, and with whom they could associate. The government also decided if they could keep their own children (Bringing them home: 26-36).
This revolution has a great impact and long-lasting implications on the countries in Latin America. In the War of Independence, Ecuador and Colombia too gained independence after battling the Spanish
Kanakas: Indentured labour or slavery? One of the most controversial aspects of the labour trade in South Sea Islanders concerns the way Kanakas were treated by their employers in Queensland. Australian legislators and social commentators in the 1860s had followed Great Britain in condemning the concept of slavery. Early sea traders physically forcing South Sea Islanders to come to Queensland. Whether or not Islanders were deceived, forced or came voluntarily to Queensland, Australian legislation required Islanders to become indentured labourers once on Australian soil.
Marcia Langton article on The European Construction of Wilderness describes a particular view of the Aboriginal displacement by the English and the claim that they original made to the land under Terra Nullius and the impact of native title cases like Marbo vs Queensland. The expression Terra Nulluis is a Latin word meaning “land belonging to no one person”. This was the regulation that was used to depict a land which has never been subject to the rule of any other authority especially by European Explorers when the occupied land did not live up to European Ideals, it was easier than conquering the land in question. The British used this International law to cement their claim on Australia when it settled here in the 1788.The British were able to achieve this because the native population in the Settlers eyes were less than people, they were not civilized, they had not cultivated the land or created what the British classed as settlements and they observed no real governmental
In the 1800 a lots of countries explored the world in a race who could find new lands first and settle, but as the race went on, they countries didn´t gave the aboriginals a chance, the took theme as slaves, killed them if they didn´t obey the white man´s word, but is this okay? A normal civilized man today would says that it´s not, but still the Australians celebrates Australian day as a national day, when in fact this day for nearly 100 years ago there was a massacre on the people how are the rightful owner of the country, that the white people came and “discovered”. Through an analyse of to text how has different opinion about the subject, I will try to understand this subject better. The first text called “the white man´s burden” is