Right My Wrongs Mp3 Download

[Liese Hittson]

On May 27, 1967, Australians voted in a referendum to change how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were referred to in the Constitution. Explore these personal stories, opinions and historical recordings of what happened.

"Those of us that took up the cudgels in the late 20s, early 30s were more or less in isolation, you see? But with the formation of FCAATSI ... we were more or less able to make more headway and make our presence felt nationally." Joe McGinness

"My parents would drive all over south-east Queensland during the 1960s ... supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to not only register with the Electoral Commission but also exercise their right to vote."

"My athe [grandfather] was a pearl diver in the Torres Strait and then he built the train tracks through to Broome. He got no money for that, and to this day they're still trying to claim for the right pay."

What is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and why are we all voting to change the Constitution? Our political reporter, Dana Morse, takes a deep dive into everything you need to know about the Voice.

A.B. Original, Dan Sultan, Uncle Harry Allie, Ara Irititja Project, Michael Aird, Janis Ah Chee, Vernon Ah Kee, Alice Springs Public Library, Simon Armstrong-Bunker, Australian War Memorial, Faith Baisden, Dr Lilon Bandler, Carolyn Barker, Linda Boney, Kylie Boyd, Aunty Lorraine Brown, Bogal Local Aboriginal Council, Bond University, Box Ridge community, Linda Burney, Kevin Croll, Jane Connors, Coomaditchie United Aboriginal Corporation - Home, Esandra Colbung, Ann Curthoys, John Dallwitz, Maureen Davis, Winsome Denyer, Aunty Colleen Dixon, Aunty Glenda Dixon, David Dixon, Bill Drew, Hannah Duncan, Monika Dvorakova, Jimmy Edgar, Ted Egan, Wesley Enoch, First Languages Australia, Harrison George, Kent Gordon, Helen Grasswill, Maisie Harkin, Catherine Howard, the Family of Ruby Hunter, Aunty Millie Ingram, Richard Kanari, Que Kenny, Phillip Kwok, Yami Lester, Kathy Lowah, Gail Mabo and Family, Michael Mansell, Kelrick Martin, Karen Michelmore, Dr Patricia Miller, Aunty Doris Moore, Natasha Marfutenko, Rhianna Patrick, Philippa Quinn, Margaret Ross, Chris Scaddan, Sydney Festival, Sarah Tomlinson, Rowdie Walden, Carly Wallace, Tina Walsberger, Sam Watson, Alice Woods, Ken Wyatt, University of Technology Sydney, Sarah Yu, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, Monika Dvora, Maisie Harkin (nee Bilson), Esandra Colbung, Lynnette Solomon-Dent, Dr Doris Paton and Hollie Johnson, Paul Carmody, Geoff Anderson, Bianca McNeair, Nykita McNeair, Irra Wangga Language Centre, Rosie Sitorus

Gavin Bannerman, Maxine Briggs, Jo Ritale, Kirsten Thorpe, Ronald Briggs, Margy Burn, Shelly Grant, Mark Gilbert, Amanda Hayman, Antoinette Buchanan, Ross Latham, John Morseu, Shannon Sutton, Yanti Ropeyarn, Suzy Russell, Damien Webb, Samantha Wells, Emma Reilly, Kate Irvine, Theresa Archer, Susanna Iuliano, Barbara Lemon, Sarah McQuade, Kerry Blinco, Paul Diamond

This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the 1992 High Court Mabo Decision and the 20th anniversary of the 1997 Bringing Them Home Report, both milestones in the history of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights.

It is important that all Western Australians gain a better understanding of our shared history. This Right Wrongs toolkit has been developed for this very purpose;to assist educators to foster an increased awareness and understanding amongst themselves, their students and the wider community.

This toolkit highlights some of the struggles endured by Aboriginal people in Western Australia, in their attempt to achieve equality. For the first time, the 1967 Referendum, the 1992 Mabo Decision, and the 1997 Bringing Them Home Report have been told from a uniquely Western Australian perspective.

I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, in particular the Aboriginal History Research Unit, for undertaking the work that has led to this historical publication, and to the many community members who contributed by sharing their experiences.

LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

What if teaching were viewed as an art? Would we approach our practice as teachers differently? Would we approach our practice as an artist does, touching up her work on the canvas? Could we use writing as a catalyst for educational change? These are my wonderings about the power of words. Like Nietzsche, I believe that "all I need is a sheet of paper and something to write with, and then I can turn the world upside down." Writing as advocacy and activism is what I have learned myself and what I hope to teach my students. Learning how to write to right wrongs is a beautiful journey.

Unfortunately, even today, students experience writing in a similar way. Explicit writing instruction rarely happens and when it does, it is a perfunctory exercise for the audience of one, the teacher. Writing can be so much more for not only our students, but for us, as teachers. It has been a personal evolution and journey to recognizing the power of my own words, and the transformative power of writing.

After the first taste of blood, you have to go back for more. This was true of my writing for social justice purposes as well. That taste of blood, this first publishing opportunity has cultivated my understanding of what it means to be a teacher, activist and leader. I began to ponder and think about my current views and perspectives on teaching, as well as, ways of educational reform.

Last year, I called on journalists to stop covering the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). I faced pushback from journalists and colleagues who argue that CPAC is newsworthy, and that coverage is not tantamount to support.

If every U.S. reporter covering the right read these two works and applied their lessons, my prediction above would not come to pass. But if not, prepare yourself for a bleak 2023 and a downright terrifying 2024.

Cardozo's opinion in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.' hinges on a stark assertion about rights and wrongs: A plaintiff has no right of action unless she can show "'a wrong' to herself; i.e., a violation of her own right." Cardozo himself made this principle the core of his analysis, yet scholars typically regard it as impenetrable, circular, vacuous, or, as Posner put it, "eloquent bluff." Small wonder, then, that readers typically turn to "reasonable foreseeability" as the essence of the case. Leading scholars treat Palsgraf as a proximate cause case, despite Cardozo's pronouncement that "W[the law of causation, remote or proximate, is thus foreign to the case before us., Though Palsgraf is widely regarded as the most famous case in American tort law, Cardozo's own reasoning in Palsgraf is typically ignored or derided, but not explained.

The facts of Palsgraf may be peculiar, but its core principle is pervasive: For all torts, courts reject a plaintiffs claim when the defendant's conduct, even if a wrong to a third party, was not a wrong to the plaintiff herself. For example, an injured plaintiff can win in fraud only if she was defrauded, in defamation only if she was defamed, in trespass only if her land rights were violated, and so on. Courts reach these results even where the defendant acted tortiously, the plaintiff suffered a real injury, and the plaintiffs injury was reasonably foreseeable. The legal rule upon which these cases rely is that which our scholarly tradition treats so ambivalently in Palsgraf: A plaintiff cannot win unless the defendant's conduct was a wrong relative to her, i.e., unless her right was violated. I shall call this principle the "substantive standing" rule and shall show that it is a fundamental feature of tort law.

Russell McGregor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

By 1967, all Aboriginal adults already held the right to vote in federal, state and territory elections. Racial discriminations had been removed from the statute books at the federal level and in all states and territories except Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. And even those three laggards were moving toward legal equality.

Neither section prevented Aboriginal people from exercising the same legal rights as other Australians. The rights of Aborigines were abridged not by the Constitution, but by laws enacted by federal and state parliaments.

Hyperbole of this kind is not unusual in political campaigns. What was unusual is that there was no organised opposition to contest the claims of the Yes campaigners, or to counter them with equally extravagant rhetoric for the negative.

Most people have a strong sense of right and wrong, and they aren't shy about expressing their opinions. But when we take a polarizing stand on something we regard as an eternal truth, we often forget that ethics evolve over time. Many shifts in the right versus wrong pendulum are driven by advances in technology. Our great-grandparents might be shocked by in vitro fertilization; our great-grandchildren might be shocked by the messiness of pregnancy, childbirth, and unedited genes. In Right/Wrong, Juan Enriquez reflects on what happens to our ethics as technology makes the once unimaginable a commonplace occurrence.

c80f0f1006