Explain Governor John Winthrop’s legal and biblical justification for seizing Indian land. - Governor John Winthrop’s legal and biblical justification for seizing Indian land is that he said, they had not "subdued" the land, and therefore had only a "natural" right to it, but not a "civil right." A "natural right" did not have legal standing. 8. Explain the main tactic of warfare used by the English against the Indians.
This decision leads to the second case of Mabo v. Queensland .The High Court decision in Mabo v. State of Queensland (1992) 107 ALR 1 overthrew the belief that Australia was terra nullius when the English occupied it in 1788. This High Court decision recognized that the Indigenous Australians had native title to their land. Then, The Native Title Act 1993 was enacted to give effect to the principles of the Mabo decision. The act provides a regime for determining whether native title exists over particular areas of lands or waters, for validating certain past acts
These cases surveyed the rights of Indigenous Australians. In the Mabo Case the High Court ruled against the Commonwealth. They decided that native title still existed and introduced the Native Title Act (1993) to re-establish power. Further to illustrate this point, the political implications of the Toonen Case reveal that the Tasmanian State law was found to be in breach of international Human Rights law which then provided the Commonwealth legislation the power to override that of the State. This case reinforces the authority of the Commonwealth over the States outlined under the external affairs power in international
Finally, the essay will give understanding of the life of Indigenous people. The British claimed possession of the Australian continent, and had power to dispossession of the Indigenous land. European settlement swept over Aboriginal land. The central argument that the Aboriginal land was taken from the British settlement, and Aboriginal seen to be as inherently incapable of become useful participants in the developing colonies: an archaic people destined to disappear before the racial and cultural superiority of the Europeans, and the Aboriginal labour was needed. (McGregor, 1997).
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.
Despite their presence, the British still claimed the land as their own even though they knew that there were natives already living there. This caused serious conflict between Indigenous Australians and the British, leaving the Aborigines dispossessed of their land and an alarming decrease in their population. Well, evidence shows that the British arrival wasn’t settlement but an act of invasion.
Secondly, our flag still displays the Union Jack on the canton, which is the position of honour. This shows that the British Empire controls Australia, which is not true. Australia is not a colony anymore, but an independent country. Foreign citizens do not recognise our flag, but instead they question why we belong to Britain. We are part of the world’s mature nations, not an infant still needing a mother’s protection.
Australia stands alone internationally in perpetrating this injustice. The Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth) excludes asylum seekers from their legal rights. It grants the Court the ability to deliver judgment on any issue, including the case as a whole, if they believe it has no reasonable grounds for success. This may seem reasonable, however the definition of ‘no reasonable grounds for success’ is as follows: For the purposes of [these sections], a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be: (a) hopeless; or (b) bound to fail; for it to have no reasonable prospect of
Kant is strongly critical of the European colonization of other lands already inhabited by other peoples. Settlement in these cases is allowed only by uncoerced informed contract. Even land that appears empty might be used by shepherds or hunters and cannot be appropriated without their consent (6:354). Cosmopolitan right is an important component of perpetual peace. Interaction among the peoples of the world, Kant notes, has increased in recent times.
With ongoing insecurity of French interest in territory, the British government in 1832 appointed James Busby as an official Resident of New Zealand. His mission was to “protect the more orderly British settlers and traders and prevent 'outrages' by the less orderly Europeans against Maori” (Ministry for Culture and Heritage, 2009). He would then go on to administer a national flag two years later in 1834. Captain Hobson arrived to New Zealand to investigate the lack of an effective government and the outbreak of Maori tribes. Arriving on the HMS Rattlesnake, this ‘ship of war’ was to protect British subjects; and was