AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP TEST THE STOLEN GENERATIONS

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP TEST
Government:
 Federal State
 Head of State: Queen Elizabeth II
 Head of Government: Kevin Rudd, Labor
 Opposition: Shadow Cabinet structure
European Settlement
 First a prison settlement
 First settlers arrived in 1788
 Australia was declared Terra Nullius ( no inhabitants) though
Aborigines had been there for more than 40,000 years.
How to become an Australian Citizen ( for migrants):
 have passed a test
 be aged 18 years or over
 be a permanent resident ( in Australia > 4 years)
 satisfy the residence requirement ( you really live in Australia)
 be likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to
maintain a close and continuing association with Australia
 and be of good character.
Pros and cons of the Australian citizenship test (from Newcomers
Network)
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiri
es/2004-07/citizenship_testing/submissions/sub36.pdf
Pros
 general Australian public supports the scheme ( good electoral
measure)
 with four years of living in Australia, migrants should have a
reasonable level of English Language Skills
 formal process --> perception of ‘nation building.’ --> it takes
personal effort to pass the test
 Some believe it is harder to be ‘extreme’ if people understand
what ‘mainstream’ is
Cons
 The total cost for applicants has doubled and this may cause
financial difficulties for some applicants.
 not focusing on the essential skills that Australian Citizens need
for everyday life
 One can pass a test and still reject the principles it encourages
 May generate a rise in profiteers who will seek to charge extra
money to help people pass the test
 People with a strong accent and poor pronunciation can pass the
test
 The government chooses the questions: possible ideological bias
Etat fédéral, chef d’Etat: Elizabeth II, chef
de gouvernement, Kevin Rudd
Travailliste.Opposition institutionnalisée.
Colonisation
D’abord une colonie pénitencière, premiers
colons fin 18ème, terre déclaréeTerra
Nullius alors que les Aborigènes étaient
présents depuis plus de 40000 ans
Nationalité australienne
Conditions pour les immigrés:
réussir le test
Avoir plus de 18 ans, avoir vécu en
Australie plus de 4 ans, y résider de
manière continue, être de bonne moralité
Le pour et le contre
Pour
Mesure populaire
4 ans en Australie pour pouvoir passer le
test  suppose une maitrise satisfaisante
de la langue
Processus formalisé qui nécessite un
travail, un effort, donc positif, preuve
d’une volonté d’intégration.
Une meilleure compréhension des valeurs
de la nation permettrait d’amoindrir les
comportements extrémistes
Contre
La question du coût pour les candidats
Pas d’évaluation des compétences
indispensables au quotidien.
Possibilité de réussir le test sans partager
les valeurs promues.
Des organismes pourraient exploiter les
immigrés en proposant des formations à
des coûts élevés.
Les compétences orales ne sont pas
évaluées.
Les questions sont choisies par le gvnt.
THE STOLEN GENERATIONS
Between 1910 and 1970 up to 100,000 Aboriginal children were taken
forcibly from their families by police or welfare officers .
What happened to them?
• Most were raised in Church or state institutions.
• Many suffered physical and sexual abuse. Food and living conditions
were poor.
• They received little education, and were expected to go into low grade
domestic and farming work.
Entre 1910 et 1970, on estime que 100,000
enfants aborigènes ont été enlevés à leurs
familles.

La plupart étaient élevés dans
institutions gouvernementales.

Ils étaient souvent maltraités, les
conditions de vie étaient difficiles.

Ils étaient formés au travail
domestique ou agricole.
Why were they taken?
They were taken because it was Federal and State Government policy
that Aboriginal children - especially those of mixed Aboriginal and
European descent - should be removed from their parents.
• The main motive was to ‘assimilate’ Aboriginal children into
European society over one or two generations by denying and
destroying their Aboriginality.
• Speaking their languages and practicing their ceremonies was
forbidden
• They were taken miles from their country.
• Parents were not told where their children were and could not trace
them.
• Children were told that they were orphans
THE APOLOGY
In the 1990s the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
started a national inquiry into the practice of removing children. The
Bringing Them Home report was released in 1997. One of the key
recommendations of the report was an official apology from the
government, as well as financial compensation for the suffering caused
by the government.
Under the previous Howard Government the Commonwealth Parliament
did not agree to a full apology but expressed ‘deep and sincere regret’
for unspecified past injustices.
In 2007 a new Labor Government was elected, and promised to finally
make an official apology to the Stolen Generations. At the first session
of the new Federal Parliament, in February 2008, the new Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd issued an official apology to the Stolen
Generations on behalf of the Government. During the apology the Prime
Minister ruled out financial compensation for the Stolen Generations.

L’objectif était d’assimiler les
enfants métis à la population générale, en
faisant disparaître leur héritage aborigène.

Il leur était ainsi interdit de parler
leur langue maternelle ou de pratiquer
leurs cérémonies.

Ils étaient séparés de leur famille
par des milliers de kms. On leur répétait
qu’ils étaient orphelins, leurs familles ne
pouvaient obtenir de leur nouvelles.
Dans les années 1990, une commission
publique s’intéresse à ces pratiques. Les
conclusions furent publiées dans le rapport
Bringing them home en 1997. Il y était
préconisé des excuses nationales ainsi
qu’une indemnisation financière. Le
gouvernement Howard ( 96-07) a toujours
refusé de suivre ces recommandations. En
2007, le nouveau premier ministre
travailliste ouvre la session parlementaire
en présentant des excuses nationales aux
Aborigènes. Toute compensation
financière a toutefois été exclue.
UK : THE ID CARD SCHEME
ID CARDS TIMETABLE
Nov: First foreign nationals
2009: Airport workers
2010: Voluntary take-up
Will it be compulsory to have an ID card?
Not initially.
Why is the UK getting identity cards?
The government says it wants to give people a sure way of proving they
are who they say they are. It argues ID cards will increase national
security, tackle identity fraud, prevent illegal working and improve
border controls.
What information will be on the cards?
The card will contain basic identification information including a
photograph of the card holder, along with their name, gender and date of
birth. A microchip will link it to a biometric database holding a person's
fingerprints.
What are the objections?
Critics say identity cards interfere with civil liberties, are too expensive
and will do little to tackle problems like terrorism. And some are
worried the cards would force illegal immigrants into avoiding contact
with hospitals and police.
Why did Britain get rid of ID cards after World War II?
During WWII , the ID card was seen as a way of protecting the nation
from Nazi spies. But in 1952, Winston Churchill's government scrapped
the cards. The feeling was that in peacetime they simply were not
needed.
2011: High volume roll-out
2015: 90% foreign nationals covered
2017: Full roll-out?
Les Britanniques ne sont pour l’instant pas
obligés d’avoir une carte d’identité.
Le gouvernement a mis en place ce projet
afin de renforcer la sécurité nationale et la
sécurité aux frontières, de lutter contre les
usurpations d’identité et l’immigration
clandestine.
Y figureront le nom, une photo, le nom, le
sexe et la date de naissance. Une puce
électronique reliera la carte à une base de
données contenant les empreintes digitales
du détenteur.
Certains pensent que ces cartes sont une
atteinte aux libertés civiques, que leur coût
est trop important. Certains s’inquiètent
que les clandestins n’osent plus se diriger
vers la police ou les hôpitaux.
Les Britanniques avaient déjà eu des cartes
d’identité, pendant la guerre. S’en
débarasser fut l’un des symboles de la
victoire.
What else might explain the reluctance of British people towards the ID
card scheme?
The government lost computer discs containing the entire child benefit
records, including the personal details of 25 million people in 2007.
Many saw this as the "final blow for the ambitions of this government to
create a national ID database" as "they simply can not be trusted with
people's personal information".
La perte de disques contenant les
informations personnelles d’un grand
nombre de familles en 2007 a renforcé le
sentiment de méfiance face au projet – le
gouvernement est-il capable de garder ces
données confidentielles ?
US: DEBATE ON LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE
Amethyst Initiative
The Amethyst Initiative is an organization made up of U.S. college
presidents and chancellors that in July 2008 launched a movement
calling for the reconsideration of U.S. drinking age laws, particularly the
minimum age of 21. Initiated by John McCardell, the movement is
currently supported by 134 college presidents who signed a statement
proclaiming, "It’s time to rethink the drinking age". According to Greek
and Roman legend, amethysts protected their owners from drunkenness.
Prohibition in the United States
Prohibition is the period from 1919 to 1933, during which the sale,
manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were
banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The "Volstead Act" is the popular name for
the National Prohibition Act. Mafia activities were limited until 1920,
when they exploded because of the introduction of Prohibition.
Prohibition became increasingly unpopular during the Great Depression,
the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed with ratification of the
Twenty-first Amendment in 1933.
MADD
Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a non-profit organization that seeks
to stop drunk driving, support those affected by drunk driving and
prevent underage drinking. It was founded in 1980.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984
The legal age for alcohol in the USA is 21 years old. The National
Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their
minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States
that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds. The national
law specifically prohibits purchase and public possession of alcoholic
beverages. It does not prohibit persons under 21 from drinking.
Une centaine de présidents d'universités
américaines (parmi lesquelles de grandes
institutions, comme Duke) ont signé avec
John McCardell un texte déplorant le
caractère contre-productif de la loi qui,
depuis 1984, fixe l’âge minimum pour
consommer de l’alcool à 21 ans.
Aux États-Unis, la prohibition fut établie
par le 18e amendement de la Constitution
et par le Volstead Acten 1919. Le 19e
amendement a été retiré en 1933 par la
ratification du 21e amendement de la
Constitution. La prohibition fournit une
opportunité alléchante pour le crime
organisé de mettre sur pied des filières
d'importations, des fabriques ou encore un
réseau illégal de distribution de boissons
alcoolisées aux États-Unis, notamment au
travers des speakeasies.
MADD (mères contre l'alcool au volant)
est une association préoccupée par l'alcool
au volant et engagée à y mettre fin
La limite des 21 ans est en vigueur dans
tous les Etats américains depuis qu'une loi
de 1984 a supprimé des subventions pour
les autoroutes à tout Etat qui ne
l'appliquerait pas.
UK: NO WIN NO FEE
Since when?
A decade has now passed since the Access to Justice Act 1999 was
adopted. The aim of the Act was to make it easier for individuals to
bring legal action without burdening the rapidly increasing legal aid
budget. This it did by enabling lawyers to work on a 'no-win, no-fee'
basis - allowing them to recover their fees from the losing party. Legal
aid funding was withdrawn from a number of categories of legal cases,
most notably personal injury.
La loi de 1999 sur l’accès à la justice a
autorisé ces accords conditionnels sur les
frais et honoraires dans les litiges relatifs à
des dommages corporels. Cela devait
permettre d’alléger le budget de l’aide
juridictionnelle tout en permettant un
accès à la justice aussi large que possible.
Les accords conditionnels sur les frais et
honoraires supposent un accord suivant
The solicitor and client agree on the fee which would normally be lequel l’avocat accepte de ne fixer aucun
charged for such a case. The agreement also states what the solicitor’s honoraire si l’affaire est perdue, mais
‘success fee’ will be. This can be an uplift of up to 100 per cent of the réclamera un honoraire accru si l’affaire est
How conditional fees work:
normal fee. If the solicitor does not win the case, then the client pays
nothing. If the solicitor is successful then the client pays the fee plus the
success fee. Most solicitors will also include a cap on the success fee,
which means that it cannot be more than 25 per cent of the damages
which are awarded to the successful claimant. This is easier to
understand by looking at an example:
Normal fee
Success fee
Cap on success fee
£2,000
£1,000
25%
Result of the case
A. Case is lost
B. Case is won: client gets £20,000 damages
+ £1,000
C.Case is won Client gets £2,000 damages
£500
Client pays
Nothing
£3,000
£2,000
£2,500
£2,000+
gagnée. Ces honoraires conditionnels,
permettent éventuellement de doubler les
honoraires. Ce système peut toutefois
revenir cher au client, qui est souvent
contraint de prendre une assurance afin
d’éviter d’avoir à payer les frais de l’autre
partie en cas de perte du procès. Le
troisième exemple ( C) montre que même
si le client se voit attribuer des dommages
et intérêts, il peut ne pas avoir intérêt à
engager une action en justice
There is still the problem that a person who loses the case will normally
be ordered to pay the costs of the other side. To help protect against this
it is possible to insure against losing a case. The insurance premium will
have to be paid in advance even if the case is eventually won. This can
cause problems to people who cannot afford the cost of the premium.
TRIAL LAWYERS
What is arbitration?
Arbitration is an alternative method of resolving disputes in which two
parties present their individual sides of a complaint to an arbitrator or
panel of arbitrators. The arbitrator, who is supposed to be neutral, then
weighs the facts and arguments of both parties and decides the disputes.
What is mandatory binding arbitration?
In mandatory binding arbitration, an insurance requires a patient to
agree to submit any dispute that may arise to binding arbitration prior to
being seen by the physician. The patient is required to waive his right to
sue, to participate in a class action lawsuit, or to appeal.
Why do doctors ask their patients to sign these agreements?
Doctors find it's a good remedy for them to counter what are
increasingly expensive malpractice insurance premiums.
Frivolous lawsuits
Refers to lawsuits that are based on a theory that seems absurd, or where
the claim results in damages that greatly exceed what one would expect
from reading a brief summary of the case. Awards for medical
malpractice are sometimes derided as frivolous (in this sense of meaning
"excessive").
Amendment to Florida’s constitution
SECTION 26. Claimant's right to fair compensation.-(a) Article I, Section 26 is created to read "Claimant's right to fair
compensation." In any medical liability claim involving a contingency
fee, the claimant is entitled to receive no less than 70% of the first
$250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, exclusive of
reasonable and customary costs, whether received by judgment,
settlement, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of defendants.
The claimant is entitled to 90% of all damages in excess of $250,000.00,
exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the
number of defendants. This provision is self-executing and does not
require implementing legislation.
L’arbitrage constitue une alternative au
procès soumis aux juridictions de l'Etat par
la désignation de personnes privées que les
parties chargent de juger leur différend.
Certain médecins font signer à leurs clients
des formulaires par lesquels ils renoncent à
leur droit à un procès devant un jury et
acceptent de recourir à un arbitrage en cas
d’erreur médicale.
Les primes d’assurance sont en constante
augmentation. En faisant signer ces
formulaires, les médecins voient leurs
primes d’assurance se stabiliser.
 Procès abusifs
En ce qui concerne les erreurs médicales,
les avocats ne peuvent toucher plus 30%
des premiers $250,000 de dommages et
intérêts perçus par leurs clients. Ils ne
peuvent toucher que 10% des dommages
attribués au delà de $250,000.
(b) This Amendment shall take effect on the day following approval by
the voters.
CCTV
CCTV in Britain's streets can trace its genesis back to a limited system
set up for the Queen's coronation in 1953. By the 1960s there was
permanent CCTV in some London streets. Now there are an estimated
four million cameras in the country, viewing us as many as 300 times a
day. CCTV is everywhere
Pros :
-Installing CCTV cameras provides evidence of acts
-any suspicious or criminal activity can be accessed to
-acts as a crime deterrent (people are less likely to commit a crime if
they know they are being watched .)
-instils a sense of security in the population .On condition that video
footage is being monitored on a regular and timely basis. Employees
and customers will feel protected by the twenty-four hour watch the
cameras provide.
Cons :
-The cost of video security set up and maintenance can be prohibitive.
- Invasion of privacy rights may pose legal liability .
Prémices du système : couronnement de la
Reine Elizabeth II. Dans les années 1960,
présentes dans quelques rues londoniennes.
Aujourd’hui au moins 4millions  filmés
300 fois par jour.
Pros :
- L’installation des cameras de surveillance
fournit une preuve des délits commis
- il est possible d’accéder à toutes les
activités criminelles
- agit comme élément dissuasif (les
individus sont moins susceptibles de
commettre un crime s’ils se savent
observés)
- offre un sentiment de sécurité à la
population à condition que les
enregistrements vidéo soient effectués sur
une base horaire régulière .Les employés et
les clients se sentiront protégés par une
surveillance 24 heures sur 24
Cons :
-Le prix de l’installation et de la
maintenance des cameras de sécurité
peuvent être prohibitifs.
-Les cameras peuvent poser des problèmes
légaux d’atteinte à la vie privée