Aboriginal Law Bulletin --- "Update Part One: Canada's Largest Land Claim; Police Misconduct; Back to the Prohibition Days?" [1990] AboriginalLawB 1; (1990) 1(42) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 2

• Update Part One
• Canada’s Largest Land Claim
• Police Misconduct
• Back To The Prohibition Days?

---

Update

Part One

Canada’s Largest Land Claim

The largest Native land claim settlement in the nation's history was agreed to in principle by the government of Canada and the Inuit of the NW Territories in a land mark decision. The Tungavik Federation of Nunavut(TFN) has negotiated 225,000 sq km land settlement, 36,000km in subsurface rights and $580 million in compensation over the next fourteen years. The T.F.N., which represents more than 17 thousand Inuits will have a strong decision-making role in environmental management and a guarantee to wild life harvesting rights and resource-sharing. While the land claim settlement remains, pending further negotiations/ratification, it all ready offers the Inuit people hope, after 15 years of waiting, that recognition of Nunavut Territory is at last coming. With this recognition comes the possibility, as Paul Quassa TFN chief negotiator says of, "A separate territory in which we can show the people in the rest of Canada that we are able to run our own affairs."

Police Misconduct

A number of serious complaints of police misconduct have been made to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service (Brisbane) concerning the arrest of persons on trumped up street offences and their subsequent treatment in the City Watch House. It was alleged that:

1) Two Aboriginal women were arrested after one of them attempted to lodge a complaint against a bouncer who had assaulted her. The police refused to take the complaint. She was then forcibly arrested, sustaining severe bruising due to the excessive use of force by the police. A friend of the woman was also arrested as a consequence of trying to find out the purpose of the arrest. The two women were taken to the City Watch House. The staff their referred to them as 'sluts', 'half castes', 'lesbian bitches', and by other obscene and abusive names. When a field officer from the Aboriginal Legal Service phoned to find out whether the women were there he was told that they were not.

2) Another case of severe and explicit police misconduct allegedly occurred on the 31st of December when two Aboriginal youths were punched, elbowed in the face and jumped on by police in the Watch House. One of them was informed by a police officer that he would not be getting self bail "Cause you're black".

The above are just two of the complaints received. The police can hardly expect any respect or co-operation from the Aboriginal community when the so called 'public protectors' are seen as the major perpetrators of violence against Aboriginal people. As Jim Evens, administrator of The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service says, "This problem can only be solved politically as Aboriginal people have lost faith in recourse to police inquiries. One hundred percent of complaints of police misconduct received by the Police Complaints Tribunal from Aboriginal people were rejected." Jim Evens has called for a meeting with the police Minister and the Aboriginal Affairs Minister to discuss ways which the police forces continuing violent and racist behaviour towards Aboriginal people can be stopped.

Back to the Prohibition Days?

The NSW Attorney General, Mr Dowd, is considering giving police the power to confiscate alcohol from people in public places in part to "reduce the number of Aborigines in jails and police cells". (Sydney Morning Herald 1/9/90)

This is being mooted as an alternative to the use of criminal sanctions to deal with a social problem. It is highly unlikely that the proposed alternative would lessen the number of Aborigines in jails or police cells. It would, rather, increase the number of Aborigines being placed in custody, as any objection to the confiscation of alcohol would more than likely lead to an arrest.

Although Mr Dowd has given his assurance that the proposed power is directed not to Aborigines alone but "anyone who drinks liquor in public", the probability of an inequitable use of the power against Aborigines is high, as the power adverts to people being drunk and disorderly and this necessitates subjective assessment.

To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed power, Mr Dowd was quoted as saying that "some local councils had already acted to confiscate alcohol from people who were allegedly drunk or disorderly in public places without there being convictions recorded, without there being arrests."

However, Mr Dowd failed to mention that where councils are taking such action they are doing so under a Local Government Ordinance proclaimed in 1919. He also failed to mention that this Ordinance was being used almost exclusively in country centres where Aborigines make up a significant percentage of the population. The use of this power in those places has resulted in many Aborigines being arrested under summary offences legislation and for resisting arrest and assaulting police because they have objected to the confiscation of their alcohol.

If Mr Dowd is sincere in his claim that it is his wish to prevent Aborigines being placed in custody and to address a social problem, perhaps his objective would be better fulfilled by first addressing other basic social problems such as the high unemployment and secondary school drop-out rates and the low health and housing standards of Aborigines . Adequate attention directed toward those problems would lead to a diminishing of the disproportionate number of Aborigines being placed in custody.

One wonders if this proposed legislation is introduced and it fails to decrease the number of Aborigines placed in custody, as previous legislation on both a state and national level has also failed, whether Mr Dowd would contemplate denying Aborigines access to alcohol altogether?