The Law Council submission asserts that for Aboriginal offenders it is "relevant to consider whether the offender observes a traditional lifestyle and lives according to the customary laws of his or her community".
The women and children who are brutalised every day in central Australia are, apparently, meant to take great comfort from the knowledge that their violent, and usually drunk, attackers have some passing acquaintance with, and at best a tenuous involvement in, some cultural practices.
One violent husband is known to have told police about the assault on his wife: "I thought she'd eventually wake up after I bashed her; she usually does." If he hunts and dances, or has ceremonial responsibilities what possible difference should it make?
Advertisement
The Law Council's submission concludes that removing the court's discretion to consider customary law will "unfairly discriminate against indigenous Australians". Opponents to the removal of customary law from sentencing assert that to do so is to impinge on a person's human rights. One wonders whose human rights they prefer: violent Aboriginal men, or the women and children who are their victims.
The Law Council submission ignores the culture of violence that is destroying many Aboriginal communities. It somewhat dismissively suggests that anyone who has been critical of the effects of customary law in the criminal justice system should have a Bex and a good lie down. If only Aboriginal women and children could do just that.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
9 posts so far.