Talk:Indigenous Australian customary law

Untitled

After the AfD discussion, which raised entirely valid points about the content but concluded the subject was worthy of coverage, I had a go at reworking the article. It's now basically a stub with two solid references, but it at least informs readers what customary law is in an Australian context. I also moved it to its present location after looking around to see what had been done elsewhere - the only similar article was one for South Africa, all others are for single systems or frameworks which have their own name - I was surprised to find there isn't one for Canada or NZ. Obviously, everything I've done this morning is entirely open for review - my interest in this topic is peripheral at best (beyond wanting an accurate article) and I'd be happy to see this article considerably expanded by those with time and an open mind on the subject. The sources provided may be of benefit in doing so. Orderinchaos 22:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't think the new title quite works. The common law of Australia (derived from English law) also recognizes "custom," but that's not what this article is about. Savidan 00:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's clearly right. As to an alternative, on the AfD page Orderinchaos correctly criticises my references to AustLII in support of a category "Indigenous law". I was too quick. AustLII's homepage has a link "Indigenous law", although I didn't rely on it. It is just a link to the "Australian Indigenous Law Library", in which are found publications such as the Australian Indigenous Law Review. It is true that in both of these titles the meaning is (to put it very crudely) "Australian Indigenous Law Library" and "Australian Indigenous Law Review", not "Australian Indigenous Law etc".

However, I take that to be the primary yet not the exclusive meaning there of "Indigenous ... law". Within the AILR one can find use of the expression "Indigenous law" by itself. Thus Zsofia Korosy writes in 2008 of "Indigenous Law and Custom". On the first page of that article, she writes of "a system of Indigenous law that predates the common law but also exists alongside it". Then she says (p 84), "Australian law only recognises Indigenous law as a fact whose existence and content must be proved by evidence, not as a law in itself". And she concludes (p 90) with a need to "overcome the fragmented recognition of Indigenous law in the general law of Australia". This is exactly what I meant. She refers in the main to "Indigenous law and custom", but I take that to be because that was her context: i.e. "custom" has been the put-down category within which the Australian legal system (like British and other colonial legal systems) has contemplated recognition of Indigenous law.

Experts in the AILR and elsewhere seem to have no objection - indeed the contrary - to the UN-sanctioned expression "Indigenous peoples". So I would still support an article title "Indigenous law (Australia)" and others, as shorthand for "Laws of Indigenous peoples (Australia)" and others. Provided, as I said on the AfD page, that there is an introduction similar to that in the article Indigenous Australians, differentiating Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and then within both. I like what Orderinchaos has done with the article so far - please continue! Though now at the moment "Australia" is made to refer only to Aborigines - which I take to be a "work in progress" matter. --Wikiain (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the IL vs CL part of the title, solely based on the fact both reports - coming out of official government agencies - use "customary law" in the title of and throughout their report, the NT legislation uses the term "customary law" consistently, etc. WP:COMMON very much applies here. I agree with Savidan that the title I moved it to could probably be improved on to reflect its particular relation to Aboriginal Australians. (I use the term Aboriginal advisedly - Islanders get very pissed off about being lumped in with Aboriginals when they have fundamentally different cultures, as even the Mabo case recognised.)

I should make it clear, though, that the edits I made this morning will probably be my only significant contribution to this article - in light of the comments at the AfD (and my own opinion largely agreeing with them), I thought rewriting it as a stub was a good idea, though - the present version does what the old version did not, inform readers, but could do so a lot better with the appropriate research and input. Orderinchaos 08:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I continue, respectfully, to dissent from that view. My take from WP:COMMON is that, in a situation of colonisation - and, some argue, much worse - state legislation and government reports are to be regarded as coloniser POV. That is: to be treated as subject matter for discussion, but not as a source of perspective. Someone might say the same about the views of the colonised, but I think that IL is readily capable of a WP:NPOV usage. Whereas the concept "customary law" (or, in an older phrasing, "custom" as a form of law) has been mainly a put-down ever since Justinian. However, I don't want to invite side-tracks and I think I have made whatever contribution I can here - and am glad to have assisted. I hope that the article will now be developed by people such as those associated with the law journals I have mentioned. --Wikiain (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to Indigenous Australian customary law

I am renaming this page to Indigenous Australian customary law, because it refers to systems of customary laws of both Aboriginal Australians, and Torres Straight Islanders (e.g. the case of Eddie Mabo, an important fact within this article; pertained to a Torres Straight Islander. Torres Straight Islanders are usually regarded as indigenous Australians but not Aboriginal Australians)

By renaming the article in this way it is better able to encapsulate all indigenous Australian customary law; avoiding the need to create a split page for customary law for each. Jack4576 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

new source

Hey all !

First off, thanks to the work that has been to create this article. I'm happy that I seem to have found a recent, quality source to expand and complete : Langton, Marcia; Corn, Aaron (2023). Law: the way of the ancestors. First knowledges. Port Melbourne, Vic: Thames & Hudson Australia/National Museum Australia. ISBN 978-1-76076-282-7. .

I have yet to find an available copy of it (it seems to be an ebook too), but hope the reference on its own right can help yall.

Cheers Vache-crapaud (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Vache-crapaud. It looks interesting. It's in the South Australian library network and available for loan, so I would think that it is available in other libraries too. I just don't have time to read it at the moment, myself. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

POV

This article has significant issues, it definitely fail WP:NPOV With over 300 Aboriginal Nations the article uses too many generalisations. It refers to death sentences removal of burial rights but these are sourced to the Law Society. The heavy reliance on the The Law Society for referencing indicates that the article doesnt reflect Indigenous Cultural practices but rather pushes a single white agencies opinions. I also note that it refers to Torres Striaght Islands as being a Christian Culture yet the culture predates any christian connection as proven by the Mabo decision that TI cultures existsed before colonial and christian arrival. The article was renamned in 2020(without any discussion) and survived an AfD back in 2011. Reading this its probably best deleted though a significant neutral cleanup might work this article must remain as having a noted bias. The article is kind of a coatrack in its current state and borders on having WP:SYNTH issues as there is little tangible connection between each section. Gnangarra 11:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)