Joan Maloney Case Analysis

JOAN MALONEY CASE STUDY ANALYSIS.
Student Name.
Name of Class
Professor
University name.
City university located.
Date.
JOAN MALONEY CASE STUDY ANALYSIS.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
In the case, Miss Maloney was convicted of possessing excess alcohol about the limit prescribed by the liquor act 1992 and the guidelines under it. The law was applied in a discriminatory approach and majorly targeted community areas of Palm Island where almost everybody was indigenous. In Maloney's case, she petitioned the prohibition was a discriminatory approach based on race contrary to section 10 of RDA. There was a big difference between the state and commonwealth laws. The Australian human rights commission intervened in her case, and the national congress of Australia's first people became the first amicus curiae. Section 10 and 8 of the RDA offered contradictory approaches toward the prohibition of indigenous people's alcohol. The interveners argued that the ban was not discriminatory as discussed in section 10, and if it was, section 8 permitted it as a special measure (Rice, 2013, 28-32).
Section 10 is an equal treatment guarantee because if an individual does not enjoy a specific right of enjoys in a limited scope because of his race, it invalidates that and allows those individuals to enjoy such human rights as other persons. Section 8, on its side, makes an exception if the law is a special measurement for CERD. The section provides that special measures be taken to secure adequate advancement of certain ethical groups and individuals to ensure the enjoyment of such rights might not be deemed racial discrimination. In this case, section 10 was less dealt with than section 8, which was extensively used. In the case, the high court ruled that rules that prohibit indigenous people from owning alcohol are discriminatory and limit the human right to own property, against the Racial Discrimination act. Also, the court affirmed that the prohibition is allowed as a special measure to secure adequate equal enjoyment of human rights and other essential freedoms (Rice, 2013).
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.
Discrimination based on rice has denied indigenous persons from enjoying fundamental human rights and freedoms. Maloney was denied the right to own property, and her counterparts of the opposite race enjoyed the privilege. She feared not only her but the future generations will continue to be discriminated against and denied their fundamental rights. The law was also applied in a discriminatory approach and created a state of concern towards the war against racism. Madam Maloney's accusation of holding alcohol over the required amount was a series of accusations and mistreatments to the indigenous man. Even though laws were protecting human rights violations, the court and the state applied the rules in a discriminatory way. Section 8 of the racial discriminatory act could be used as a special case to pin down the person whose rights have been violated (Rice, 2013, 28-32).
The continuous violation of human rights, majorly to the indigenous persons, is highly profiled by the high court. There has been a series of many cases that the court appeals unfavorably to claimants for relief under anti-discriminatory and equal opportunity legislat...