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 legislation. The state and courts, which are tasked with upholding the constitution and protecting human rights, posed a significant threat against racism and discrimination. Therefore, Ms. Maloney faced the problem of been graded her right to own property and enjoy the laws and freedoms of the land without limit. People of her nature have also faced the same challenges before. The vice might continue unless the systems and the people occupying the offices start treating indigenous people with decorum (Rice, 2013, 28-32).
CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.
Previous cases, as illustrated from Gerhardy v Brown, western Australia v ward ruled that section 10 of RDA is not limited to discriminatory conduct but more broadly covers conduct that restricts the enjoyment of human rights. When these concepts of section 8 were brought in Maloney’s case, more unnecessary baggage of discrimination law was caused. The accumulation and increased number of cases determined against indigenous persons continued to lay the foundation for more violation of human rights and freedoms in the future and also caused Maloney to be a victim of discrimination and injustice in the law (Rice, 2013, 28-32).
Many of the justices in the liquor act and the regulations attached to it operated to limit human rights instead of section 10 of RDA. The right to own property is limited, of which, in this case, alcohol was recognized as property in article 5 (d) (v) of CERD. The contradiction between the right to own property and whether the property is a human right, as Kiefel J decided, also contributed to Maloney's case not to successfully determined in her favor. Maloney's right to equal treatment and access public place or service was invalidated by the relationship between section 10 and the liquor act, where judges upheld that no right had been violated (Gear, 2014, 41).
The place where Ms. Maloney lived was a vital determinant of the limitation of her human rights by the liquor act and its regulations. The reliance on the sufficiency of formal equality was given short shrift by the judges who dealt with the case. The liquor act and its rules were purely crafted to limit the rights of Palm Island, which is believed to be aboriginal persons. Other parts of Queensland were not much affected by the act meaning the act posted a more significant input into the problem that faced Maloney. Racial discrimination and the perception that Palm Island was inferior led to the violation of the human rights of the people who lived on the island. The selective administration of justice in Queensland played a significant role in the determination of Maloney's case. Kiefel and Bell JJ rejected the proportionality issue raised by the Australia Human Rights Commission in view that section 10 of RDA is also required to be treated proportionally. The conflicting ideas and opinions expressed by efferent judges in their interpretation of the law acted against Maloney.
Also, the approach was taken by the court to determine whether a law is a special measure that worked against her. With the majority of the judges find that the liquor act and its regulations limit Ms. Maloney her human right to own property, they decide that the law is a special measure as defined in article 1 (4) of the CERD. This rendered the exception from the operation of section 10 of RDA valid. Sect...