Human Rights: the Basiccard and Australia's Aboriginal Culture
Human Rights: The BasicCard and Australia's valuable Aboriginal culture
As many Australians try to re-bridge with the Aboriginal population, trying to ‘help’ their situation could ironically infringe on Human Rights. A 2007 scheme, still operating, is the ‘Northern Territory National Emergency Response’. It aims to decrease the sexual abuses and increase school attendance amongst children. The strategy is to ban alcohol and prohibit pornography.
In striving to grow as a free and fair nation, the government believes they can pressure their natives into ‘evening up’ living conditions. Interestingly, there is a lack of consent from the people actually concerned, the Aboriginals. This tough love banning approach has no guarantee of success and comes with dire Human Rights breaches. United Nations’ rights being contradicted in this case are: ‘Being born free and equal’, ‘don’t discriminate’, ‘The right to democracy’ and ‘No one can take away your Human Rights’.
Currently, Aboriginals are not being treated the same as non-Aboriginal Australians. As reasonable as it is to say that Aboriginal children may suffer the effects of sexual harassment, the same abuses occur regardless of race. Aboriginals face being generalised and discriminated under the Plan. To treat an Indigenous person with more suspicion or condemn them to restrictive laws is a terrible injustice. It is a double-standard policy that does not apply evenly, to everyone.
Ninety-four per cent affected by income quarantine are Aboriginal. Half of the welfare payments to these people are monitored. This portion of income is restricted to basic items. Often, the items they are ‘permitted to buy’ will be located in a separate area and the queues are isolated from the other buyers. The BasicCard is limiting and does not allow access to common luxuries found in Australia’s modern world. Indulgence is an option that Aboriginals should be entitled to. The system is degrading and could create prejudice
As many Australians try to re-bridge with the Aboriginal population, trying to ‘help’ their situation could ironically infringe on Human Rights. A 2007 scheme, still operating, is the ‘Northern Territory National Emergency Response’. It aims to decrease the sexual abuses and increase school attendance amongst children. The strategy is to ban alcohol and prohibit pornography.
In striving to grow as a free and fair nation, the government believes they can pressure their natives into ‘evening up’ living conditions. Interestingly, there is a lack of consent from the people actually concerned, the Aboriginals. This tough love banning approach has no guarantee of success and comes with dire Human Rights breaches. United Nations’ rights being contradicted in this case are: ‘Being born free and equal’, ‘don’t discriminate’, ‘The right to democracy’ and ‘No one can take away your Human Rights’.
Currently, Aboriginals are not being treated the same as non-Aboriginal Australians. As reasonable as it is to say that Aboriginal children may suffer the effects of sexual harassment, the same abuses occur regardless of race. Aboriginals face being generalised and discriminated under the Plan. To treat an Indigenous person with more suspicion or condemn them to restrictive laws is a terrible injustice. It is a double-standard policy that does not apply evenly, to everyone.
Ninety-four per cent affected by income quarantine are Aboriginal. Half of the welfare payments to these people are monitored. This portion of income is restricted to basic items. Often, the items they are ‘permitted to buy’ will be located in a separate area and the queues are isolated from the other buyers. The BasicCard is limiting and does not allow access to common luxuries found in Australia’s modern world. Indulgence is an option that Aboriginals should be entitled to. The system is degrading and could create prejudice