当前位置: X-MOL 学术Australian Feminist Law Journal › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Innervating Colonialism: Exploring the Retraction of Indigenous Rights Through Two Sentencing Provisions
Australian Feminist Law Journal Pub Date : 2018-07-03 , DOI: 10.1080/13200968.2018.1547102
Mary Spiers Williams

This essay reflects on the contention that the global phenomenon of neoliberalism explains the contemporary retreat from Indigenous rights recognition in Australia in the context of two legislative provisions concerning the use of Aboriginal law in sentencing that was introduced in the mid-2000s by two different governments. Each sentencing provision purported to address claims of judicial tolerance of violence against Aboriginal women and children, specifically judicial misperceptions of Aboriginal law regarding this. But the provisions reflect polarised policies regarding recognition of Aboriginal law: one was introduced by a territory government that explicitly pursued a policy of respectful engagement with indigenous knowledges and the advancement of Indigenous self-determination; the other was introduced by a federal government as part of a larger imposition in that territory of a policy of overt intervention and control into the lives of Aboriginal peoples. The federal provision effectively rendered the territory provision nugatory. What the essay finds is that while neoliberalism facilitated the retraction of Indigenous rights, it does not fully explain that retraction. The retraction is better understood as part of a longer trend of colonialism that has never been disrupted, and that has enlisted to its ends various contemporary discourses. In this case, one can identify feminist logics and advocacy (hoping to support the interests of Indigenous women) are enlisted to serve colonialism's purposes; more nuanced and anti-essentialist feminist positionings may also be twisted to this end. A further finding of this essay is that even the legislative provision that attempted to respect Aboriginal rights and recognise Aboriginal law could not achieve what its drafters intended, because the framework into which it was inserted had not been decolonised. The story of these two provisions offers some support to the contention that Australia has never desisted in colonialism, and that colonialism will draw upon (and twist where necessary) other discourses to facilitate its ends of continually dispossessing and delegitimising first nation peoples here.

中文翻译:

煽动殖民主义:通过两项量刑条款探讨撤回土著权利

本文反映了一种论点,即新自由主义的全球现象解释了当代在澳大利亚的退缩,这是在两个立法于2000年代中期由两个不同国家的政府引入的关于使用原住民法律的两项立法条款的背景下。每一项量刑条款均旨在解决司法宽恕针对土著妇女和儿童的暴力行为的诉求,特别是对此的司法误解。但是这些规定反映了关于承认原住民法律的两极化政策:一个领土政府提出了一项明确的政策,该政策明确奉行尊重土著知识和促进土著人民自决的政策;另一种是联邦政府引入的,是对该地区实行公开干预和控制原住民生活的政策的一部分。联邦规定实际上使领土规定无效。本文发现的是,尽管新自由主义促进了原住民权利的撤回,但并不能完全解释这种撤退。撤消被更好地理解为是殖民主义的一种长期趋势的一部分,这种趋势从未被打断过,并且已经征服了各种当代话语。在这种情况下,可以确定女权主义的逻辑,并倡导倡导(希望支持土著妇女的利益)来服务于殖民主义的目的;为此,更细微和反本质主义的女权主义立场也可能会发生扭曲。本文的进一步发现是,即使试图尊重原住民权利并承认原住民法律的立法规定也无法实现其起草者的意图,因为其插入的框架并未被非殖民化。这两个规定的故事为澳大利亚从未停止过殖民主义的论点提供了一定的支持,而殖民主义将借鉴(并在必要时加以扭转)其他话语,以便利其在这里继续剥夺和使第一民族合法化的目的。
更新日期:2018-07-03
down
wechat
bug