Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Queen elizabeth role of women
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Queen elizabeth role of women
HUS1FAS 2016 CRITICAL ANALYSIS ASSIGNMENT Governor Bourke’s 1835 proclamation Overturned Batman’s deed. What does this say about European Attitudes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty? PART A: Primary Source Analysis - Governor Bourke’s Proclamation (1835) Write a paragraph of approximately 400 Words about the primary source The primary source is the Proclamation of Governor Bourke, dated 10 October 1835.The source is an agreement between Governor Bourke and Aborigines. The purpose of this agreement is to legalise the native land is owned by the Crown (Government) ensuring Torres Islanders claim no ownership or sovereignty over land. The Proclamation of Governor Bourke was a document written by Sir Richard Bourke, KCB, the …show more content…
Jeff Lambert’s thesis suggests “the proclamation delivered an injustice to the Aboriginal nation that took over 200 years to legally reject Terra Nullius, albeit under certain conditions” (Lambert 2012. pg15). Lambert explains the stages before and after the Proclamation 1835 formed also noting a statement by Joseph Bank “Sir Joseph Banks’ prediction that no Aborigines would be found in the interior of the continent, because they only lived on fish and shellfish, but rather a few nomadic peoples along the coast line, may have influenced the British government’s decision to declare Terra Nullius” (Lambert 2012. pg15). The statement is discussed in and evidenced with a map. Jeff Lambert also explains the European attitudes towards Aboriginal and Torres islander sovereignty. Jeff Lambert states Europeans perceived Torres Islanders and Aboriginals as ‘inferior’ (Lambert 2012. pg.12). Lambert (2012. pg13) suggests that “There were some who asserted that terra nullius implied that unoccupied land was not the only meaning of the phrase and that it could also be interpreted as an absence of civilised society.”. The principle of terra nullius means no-man’s land, therefore after the Governor Bourke Proclamation Aboriginals had no legal ownership of land. According to Lambert (2012. pg13) Torres Islanders and Aboriginals ownership of land were classified ‘‘outside the “advanced” nations of Europe” as Aboriginals and Torres Islanders used land for “sustainability, cultural and spiritual terms”. (Lambert 2012 pg.13) Lambert suggests “affinity to the land was not recognised by Europeans because it did not conform to the manner and procedure of land ownership recording in Europe”. Jeff Lambert debates that Aboriginals lived in Australia before the European settlers. Evidence provided by Jeff Lambert is a map that shows
The Queensland Government acted in response and they passed an unexpected piece of legislation through the House without any debate - the Torres Strait Islands Coastal Islands Bill. The Act quoted: 'Any rights that Torres Strait Islanders had to land after the claim of sovereignty in 1879 is hereby extinguished without compensation'. This was how the Mabo case started with an honourable aim. The main aim of the case was to prove that the Queensland Government breached the Bill breached the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. It was also a case to make the Commonwealth government aware that Native Australians had the right to the so called "terra nullius", the name given to Australia when the Europeans first arrived meaning empty land.
The Calder Case was the spark that led to the Canadian government recognizing Aboriginals and their rights. Firstly, the aboriginals used the Calder Case to inform the government that they were taking away their rights. The Calder Case was launched after the Attorney General of British Columbia declared “that the Aboriginal Title, other wise known as the Indian Title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory...has never been lawfully extinguished.”1 The statement made by the government claimed that the Aboriginal Title did not exist in the eyes of the law and before the Calder Case, it allowed them to ignore Aboriginal land rights all over the country. In addition, The Calder brought the issues the Aboriginals were facing with land claims to the attention of the Canadian government. “According to Kainai Board of Education The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court ended up rejecting the native's claims after being split on it's validity. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition required new respect for Aboriginal land claims.”2 The Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of the Calder Case benefited the Aboriginals as the government was...
The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. Eddie Mabo’s introduction of the Native Title Act has provided Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to state claim to their land, legally recognising the Indigenous and the Torres Strait Islanders as the traditional owners.
He also assumes that they should be participated in economic cooperation, resource development and the sharing of knowledge and technologies, like they assisted non-Aboriginal people in the past time. (James Tully pg.53) Obviously, Aboriginal people get a chance to participate in the society and to get respect and rights to exert their ability. Therefore, Aboriginal are able to promote the economic development. It is sufficiently show equality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in economic aspect. On the other hand, Tully’s states that Aboriginal people want to get power back from the government, they more likely to govern themselves and desire to delegate several of their rights to the political area. (James Tully pg.53) I will argue that it is valid to repatriate legal and political powers to Aboriginal people. Because when they self-govern accord with their own tradition and laws, it will create stabilize social order which avoid misconduct in our society. Furthermore, it offers Aboriginal people fair chance to speak in public that maintain their interest and profit. Most importantly, it recalls and emphasizes mutual respect is a factor to balance citizens between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. So that while Aboriginal people express their voice to society, it gain
Introduction “We are all treaty people” Campaign. The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400).
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
Indigenous People. In evaluating the Legal System’s response to Indigenous People and it’s achieving of justice, an outline of the history of Indigenous Australians - before and during settlement - as well as their status in Australian society today must be made. The dispossession of their land and culture has deprived Indigenous People of economic revenue that the land would have provided if not colonised, as well as their ... ... middle of paper ... ...
Their main vision is to empower the idea of a shared country and encourage opportunities for growth. With the perplexed requirements set out by the Native Title Act, this tribunal has helped claimants by providing legal aid to increase the chances of regaining lost land. For example, the Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 case was successful in recognising the lost land of the Wik people of Cape York. “They claimed native title over land that had previously been leased by the State Government to farmers for pastoral use” (Woodgate, Black, Biggs & Owens, 2011, p.354). The court then decided by a 4:3 majority that pastoral leases did not necessarily extinguish native title. This means that, in some cases, native title rights will co-exist with the rights of the pastoralists. Therefore, through progression and more native title cases heard, the laws surrounding the Native Title Act will adapt to further assist the Indigenous Australians in reclaiming their land. For instance, the processes surrounding Native Title issues are constantly being refined. As more and more people and political parties become aware of this process, the easier court litigation will become (Dow, 2002)
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
Reynolds, H. (1976). The Other Side of The Frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia. Queensland, Australia: James Cook University
Despite these small problems, the native title is an effective aspect of our common and statute law, which strives to achieve fair results for all citizens. Today we understand that the aboriginal’s form of ownership of the land extends back more the 40,000 years, which is recognised in the Australian Native Title. This important aspect of Australia’s common and statue law should be further taught in schools, universities and to the community because of its ongoing political, social, cultural and legal significance. Native title was adopted not only to benefit indigenous citizens but also the Australian society as a whole.
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
It said that aboriginal people should be treated equally with land rights, as indigenous Australians were the first on our land that we are on today. This challenged many different previous Australian legal statements to do with Aboriginals including one of the main ones being that Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island communities or people owned no land before the arrival of the British in 1788. This statement was called Terra Nullius, which means land belonging to no one. This Native Title Act of 1993 recognized native title and recognizing and that the aboriginal’s community owns the land, as they are the original owners. The Mabo decision was one of Australia’s firsts steps in recovering all the injustices towards the Indigenous people that were happening in the past and giving them back the land they hold so dearly that they own. The Mabo decision contributed to the collective Identity of Indigenous people as is gave back there cultural land and bringing the most major part back to the aboriginal culture which is the land and the connection between them and the land. This Native Title Act of 1993 allowed the aboriginals to enhance there collective identity due to the fact that it was the first time they were positively recognized and the first time they got something back that was once taken from them all making there beliefs, rituals stronger and overall enhancing there collective identity of being aboriginal. Since the Mabo decision there has been many other cases and different changes and different things added to the native title. The Mabo Decision first did the recognition and giving back of the aboriginal land and it was one of the first to recognize that the land title was wrong and that it did belong to the
In 1788 when the European settlers “colonised” Australia, the Australian land was known as “terra nullius” which means “land belonging to no-one”. This decision set the stage for the problems and disadvantages faced by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for 216 years. The protection policy was meant to disperse tribes and force Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people off their traditional land so the “white Australian’s” could have more control. The protection policy enforced by the British colonies drove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander onto reserves.
Indigenous Australian land rights have sparked controversy between Non Indigenous and Indigenous Australians throughout history. The struggle to determine who the rightful owners of the land are is still largely controversial throughout Australia today. Indigenous Australian land rights however, go deeper than simply owning the land as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have established an innate spiritual connection making them one with the land. The emphasis of this essay is to determine how Indigenous Australian land rights have impacted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, highlighting land rights regarding the Mabo v. the State of Queensland case and the importance behind today’s teachers understanding and including Indigenous