Experiential Focusing Techniques in Counselling

Experiential Focusing Techniques in Counselling Katrina Quaye (kate) What wants my attention now?   Focusing is a unique skill discovered by Gene Gendlin. Working with  Carl Rogers back in the 1960’s, research was done as to why some people have success in therapy and others do not. A very interesting result emerged; those who progressed and benefitted most from therapy were the ones who took some time to reflect, when asked a question they seemed to sense something within themselves and an answer would begin to emerge. Over time Gendlin discovered what became know as the ‘felt sense’. This is a sense that we all have but often it is operating unbeknown to us. This sense, sometimes called a bodily sense, can teach us much about ourselves and also our relationship with others and the world around us. It is a way of listening to our bodies with compassion, without judgement, and something that moved me most of all â€Å"gentleness’. Enhancement of knowledge There are six basic steps to learn in focusing. To begin with we are taught to go through the process, step by step, learning these steps well, by sitting down and quietly going ‘inside’ our body. Once these steps are learnt thoroughly the process can flow with greater ease, quickly accessing our felt sense and going with it. This can be done taking a walk, doing the dishes, driving to work, with continuous practice our body will always be there guiding us. Clearing the space, if someone is not quite in the moment, different thoughts, things to do list going through their mind, it is best to take a moment to clear a space inside. This can be done quite well in a short amount of time by asking the client in their mind to wrap up each concern on the list and placing it in an imaginary basket, not forcing each concern but in a clear friendly manner. This can also be done with a background feeling of being tense, anxious, whatever the feeling maybe to set it aside for the time being. Not forcing, but inviting it to stand aside for some time. Gendlin would often take half an hour for this process with clients. Although it may be done in a much shorter amount of time, five to ten minutes. This would allow for a longer session with the felt sense. One then checks back with the self, that you are feeling clearer to start. So now we can choose something to work on. One may already have an issue they want to work on, in which case one can check with the body if this is okay to work with. Alternatively one may see if there is something that needs their attention now. Often the sense is felt in the throat, chest or abdomen area. One of the key words in focusing is gently, gently say hello to the sense, checking if it is okay to be with it. Gendlin said ‘it is best to be next to the sense, like a friend sitting on a park bench wanting to have a conversation’. We don’t need to become immersed in the sense, just to be next to it. Like a sensitive baby animal we need to be gentle with the sense. Cornell (A. W. Cornell. pg.18) mentions, ‘Focusing is like being a friend to your own inner experience’. You may bring such qualities of friendship as curiosity, respect, empathy, warmth, compassion, letting it know that you are there to listen and listening with these qualities. Now we have said hello and acknowledged it is there, we can begin to describe the felt sense, it may start with a feeling of tightness in the chest, we acknowledge this, then we can ask ’how does this tightness feel’ we are checking back with this word to see that it captures it well. We are now resonating back and forth with the word or image, we don’t need to rush this process. Like a friend who wants to share something that is important to them, they don’t like to feel rushed. We are sitting next to this felt sense, as Genlin (Gendlin pg 57-58) explains, ‘ the felt sense is more than an emotion, with an emotion we know what it is, angry, sad, joyful, but with the felt sense we say I can feel it right there, but i don’t know what it is’. A felt sense contains a maze of meanings, we need to allow the sense time to form. That tightness may develop as anger, but within that anger can come a sense of the whole situation, what led up to that anger, how one is involved, it may for example show you scenes from childhood where you felt angry towards your parent for not understanding or listening to you. The felt sense can give a very complete form of understanding that will be more than just the anger. We now have words and or images we can work with that through checking would fit with the sense. We now come to sense from â€Å"its† view, what it wants us to know. I am letting ‘it’ know, I hear it, or sense it, welcoming it, it knows where it wants to or needs to go, we are listening not forcing or trying to work out whats happening, but allowing the process to unfold. Ending. It is important to ask if there is more that needs to come or shall we end here. It is important to thank the felt sense, to re-assure it that if need be I will be back. If we can develop a trusting relationship that when we say we will return, that we do so, the felt sense will be re-assured. The more we do this the more it will work with us. I will write a brief summary of my own personal experience using Focusing over a number of weeks. Having a quiet place I went inside of myself and sensed a feeling around my heart area. Gradually words like unappreciated, unloved emerged, I was listening to these words seeing if they were the ones. Yes they were. An image of a heart with a wooden dagger stabbed through it emerged, thick deep red blood was slowly oozing out. I was able to sit with this image for sometime, it was very strong, after sometime I needed to finish. Afterward I felt extremely heavy, it was hard to even continue with my daily tasks. The next day I came back to Focusing, realizing that I hadn’t finished off the process properly, mainly because after some time it seemed too much for me. I went back inside and the image was still there, I sat with it and came to understand the experiences I had been through that brought about this image. I needed to be more caring of myself. I asked it the question of how would it feel like if the difficulty wasn’t there. This brought forth an abundant response of joy and happiness, something like fire works were going off in celebration. I felt very light as if a big shift had taken place. Over the next two weeks I went back in to see what was there. I had an image of myself as a young four year old, the feelings of being unheard came up, need to do things perfectly, as mentioned above it takes in a blend of the situation not just an emotional feeling, but a deeper sense of what it was like to be that young child. I was being shown what it was like and by my acknowledging this allowing the whole of it to come out. There was a shift where those strong feelings seemed to melt away. Enhancement of Understanding Greater understanding of myself has come about through Focusing. Other peers and companions have said the same of their experiences when focusing; if one is to gain continuing benefits it is important to keep with the practice. There are certain attitudes that can help the process. Focusing is a very gentle process, approaching it with the wisdom of not knowing is very beneficial, as Cornell (pg21) says, ‘Why would you listen to someone if you think you already know what they have to say.’ The feeling of respect and wanting to know what the sense has to say is of the utmost importance. We need to ‘let go of what we know, to bring an attitude of open, friendly, interested, non judgmental curiosity to our experience†. (Silverston, pg. 2). We need to come to trust the felt sense that it will led us where we need to go. Sometimes along the way it may seem to be taking many detours. Sometimes it is trying to give us a broader understanding, showing various images or certain words. In some ways it is like being an investigator being excited or curious to find out what lies within. We are not taking sides, leaving one part shut out, not wanting something to be heard or acknowledged, we are not excluding any part of ourselves. We are listening to each part and gradually integrating each part of the self. â€Å"When we listen to a place inside that hurts, for instance, the quality of our presence is not the usual one of fixing or trying to make it feel better. Rather, we are willing to let it be exactly as it is†. (Wilson Van der Kooy, pg 1.) This attitude can be a huge relief for many, its okay to be as you are, allowing whatever is there to come up, to recognize and acknowledge it. As Gendlin (year?) said, â€Å"Every ‘bad’ feeling is potential energy toward a more right way of being, if you give it the space to move toward its rightness.† Enhancement of Self Awareness All of the above leads to greater self awareness. Coming to know what is going on inside of oneself. As many decisions need to be made in ones life, the building up of this awareness which can bring about greater confidence, is of huge benefit. I find in my own life if there is a lot happening around me I connect to that inner part which seems stable and able to help me keep centered. For those I have worked with there has been similar feed back, they are connecting to that inner part and making clearer judgements. This is an invaluable skill that can be used for myself in every day life, a skill that can be passed onto my clients, something that the therapist doesn’t control, people can learn this and then use it for the rest of their lives without having to go to the therapist all the time. Bibliography Cornell, Ann Weiser. Focusing In Safety And Trust. The Power of Focusing: A Practical Guide to Emotional Self-healing. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1996. 18. Print.Cornell, Ann Weiser. What Is Focusing? The Power of Focusing: A Practical Guide to Emotional Self-healing. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1996. 6. Print. Gendlin, Eugene T. The Crucial Bodily Attention. Focusing-oriented Psychotherapy: A Manual of the Experiential Method. New York: Guilford, 1996. 57 58. Print. Cornell, Ann Weiser. Focusing in Safety and Trust. The Power of Focusing: A Practical Guide to Emotional Self-healing. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, 1996. 21. Print. Focusing as a doorway for spiritual growth. Wilson Van der Kooy, pg 1. Steve Silverton Page 2. How to think like a poet and make better decisions Question or Assessment Task: COP116 3000 Word Essay

Analysis of the Television Show The Simpsons Essay -- The Simpsons Car

Analysis of the Television Show The Simpsons The specific children’s series that I will be discussing is entitled â€Å"The Simpson’s†. The main characters consist of Homer, Marge, Lisa, Bart, and Maggie Simpson. They reside in a town called Springfield, one that is typical of an American suburb. Some other characters which appear on a regular basis are Mr. Burns, the owner of the Springfield chemical plant, his assistant Weiland Smithers, the Flanders family, which resides right next door to the Simpson’s, and principal Skinner. He is the head administrator of the elementary school that Bart and Lisa attend. The episode that I would like to evaluate is one, which consists of two parts. This episode’s main focus is the accidental discovery of oil, by the elementary school’s groundskeeper Wily. He came upon it when burying a dead rat that was a classroom pet. At first the school administrators were going to use their newfound wealth to promote educational programs for their students. They held a â€Å"suggestions† seminar and carefully listened to some students who were trying to promote some of their ideas on how the schools money should be spent, including the Lisa Simpson. She wanted to have jazz lessons implemented. This episodes main educational goal was to promote the idea of children expanding their knowledge. It actually seemed as though the television program was highly in favor of teaching viewers the value of a good education. I believe that the makers of the program were not trying to target an audience of children under twelve years of age, but viewers attending high school as well. The episodes first part was clearly devoted to promoting the fact that schools should utilize â€Å"extra† money to start new types of courses, that should take into consideration a students opinion in order for these new types programs to go over well with those attending the school in question. However, this positive aspect of the episode quickly disappeared and introduced such negative concepts as greed, aggression and hate. Mr. Burns, the chemical plant owner, caused this. He found a devious way of connecting a mile long tube from his new plant called â€Å"Slant drilling† to the elementary school. This tube was placed acute angle, which allowed him to steal the schools newly found wealth. At this point, I believe that the episode held the audience’s attention by allo... ... part of one’s life, their behavior drastically changes, which in effect allows their level of distress to become reduced (Sdorow, 624). The characters in the aforementioned program all seemed to want to justify violence; this was coined deindiviluation by psychologists. The group members become less aware of their individual behavior and even less concerned about social evaluation (Sdorow, 645). This episode, in my opinion, can be integrated into psychology as well as sociology courses. It is a great example of how people forget about the basic good of humanity when agitated and backed by others who share the same opinion. ON an elementary school level, teachers can have students act out better solutions among schoolmates. There can be a cast of Simpson’s characters being played by elementary school children, and an actual play can be shown, entitled â€Å"The Remaking of Part 2†. (The â€Å"real† ending to the Simpson’s episode? The shooter ended up being Bart and Lisa’s baby sister, Maggie. Maybe In the â€Å"remaking† they should have her sucking on a lollypop, and not pointing a gun.) BIBLIOGRAPHY Sdorow, Lester M. Psychology. 3rd ed. Madison: Brown and Benchmark, 1995

Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Essay

Introduction During the 2010 Federal election, both major political parties campaigned on indigenous affairs. Following the ALP’s victory, Prime Minister Gillard established an independent Expert Panel to â€Å"to investigate how to give effect to constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. † Two schools of thought have dominated the national conversation of how this should be achieved. One view is that an amendment to the preamble of the constitution will provide safe and symbolic recognition. The alternative view is that more substantive reform is required to secure equality before the law. On January 16 2012, the Panel presented the Prime Minister their report and proposed five amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution. This paper will evaluate the five proposals and the reasons offered by the Panel. Each amendment will be analysed on its symbolic significance and potential legal ramifications. Finally this paper will conclude on how to best give Indigenous Australians recognition within the constitution. Constitutional Recognition For the panel, constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians means removing provisions in the Constitution that contemplate racial discrimination. Whether intended or not, the five proposals address the broader issues of racial discrimination and equality before the law within the Commonwealth Constitution. Repealing section 25 In its report, the Panel indicates that 97. 5% of all submissions approve of repealing section 25. Section 25 reads: For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. On face value, section 25 appears racist as it contemplates States excluding voters on the grounds of race. This interpretation has been affirmed by Chief Justice Gibbs in McKinlays’s case (1975). Section 25 must be read with section 24 to ascertain the real intention of the framers. Section 24 specifies that the number of lower house representatives is determined by dividing the total number of people of the Commonwealth by twice the number of senators and then dividing the population of each state by that quota. Therefore, by racially excluding voters the numerical input of the State’s population is reduced; the State’s federal representation decreases and discriminatory states forgo greater federal representation. Although section 25 was intended to penalise racially discriminatory states, a State was able to enact discriminatory legislation by drafting laws that did not disenfranchise ‘all’ members of a racial group. For instance, New South Wales denied certain classes of indigenous people the right to vote. The panel states that this proposal is ‘technically and legally sound’. Many constitutional commentators agree but there is a small minority who have identified possible legal consequences. In 1980, Justice Dean included section 25 as a provision guaranteeing the right to vote. The right to vote is not constitutionally entrenched. Parliament has authority to determine the electoral process pursuant to section 30. It is unclear whether the High Court would find legislation that disqualified people of certain races from voting invalid because of the section 7 words ‘directly chosen by the people’ and section 24. Theoretically, it may be argued that section 25 should not be removed until the right to vote is constitutionally entrenched. However, this view is highly unorthodox and section 25 should be repealed. Repealing section 51 (XXIV) Section 51(xxvi) authorises the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to â€Å"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws†. The Panel recommends removing section 51(xxvi) as it contemplates discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was denied purchasing Pastoral property from the Crown. The Queensland Minister for Lands reasoned that ‘the government did not view favourable proposals to acquire large areas of land for development by Aborigines in isolation’. Koowarta argued that the Minister was in breach of sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Joh Bjelke-Petersen challenged the constitutional validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The Premier argued that s51(xxvi) ‘does not confer power to make laws which apply to all races’. A majority of the High Court found that sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 were invalid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). The Hindmarsh Island Bridge case illustrates parliament’s ability to enact adversely discriminatory laws in relation to race. The case concerned whether the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) could remove rights which the plaintiffs enjoyed under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). The Ngarrindjeri women argued that the races power only allowed parliament to pass laws that are for the benefit of a particular race. The Commonwealth argued that there were no limits to the power. The High Court found that as the Heritage Protection Act was validly enacted under s 51(xxvi), the same head of power could support a whole or partial repeal. The High Court was divided on whether S 51(xxvi) could only be used for the advancement or benefit of a racial group. In his judgement, Justice Kirby found that section 51 (xxvi) ‘does not extend to the enactment of laws detrimental to or discriminatory against, the people of any race (including the Aboriginal race) by reference to their race’. Justices Gummow and Hayne said that there was no basis for reading s51(xxvi) as not permitting adverse discrimination. In summary, Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth did not confirm that laws enacted under section 51 (xxvi) must be beneficial. Since then, it has generally been accepted that s 51 (xxvi) gives the Commonwealth power to discriminate either in favour or against members of a particular race. The removal of S51 (xxvi) would be a significant symbolic gesture to Indigenous Australians as they are the only group to whom section 51(xxvi) laws have been enacted. Not all laws passed under s 51 (xxvi) have been adversely discriminatory. In Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case), sections 8 and 11 of The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) were held to be constitutionally valid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). As a result, the Franklin River Hydroelectric Dam could not be constructed in a place considered spiritually significant by Aboriginal people. A repeal of section 51 (xxvi) might not invalidate the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. Other powers, specifically the external affairs power in s51 (xxix), would support this legislation under the principle of dual characterisation. Other beneficial legislation may not be supported under the same principle. In Western Australia v The Commonwealth, the court found The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) constitutionally valid pursuant to section 51 (xxvi). The court did not find it necessary to consider any other heads of power. Australia’s endorsement of the UN Deceleration on the Rights of Indigenous People may provide scope to support the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) under the external affairs power. However, it seems reckless to gamble with legislation that establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. Repealing section 51 (xxvi) will also limit the Commonwealth’s ability to pass new laws for the advancement of Indigenous Australians. For these reasons, the Panel proposes that the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) must be accompanied by a new head of power with respect to Indigenous Australians. Inserting section 51A The preamble to S51A is the first recommendation which actually addresses the important contributions of Indigenous Australians. Section 51A also allows the Commonwealth to makes laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Similar to section 51(xxvi), the power contained within section 51A is not subject to any conditions. This is somewhat of a double edged sword. All laws currently passed under section 51 (xxvi) have only been enacted with respect to Indigenous Australians. As the power is not subject to any restriction, all legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) would most likely be supported by section 51A. Alternatively, section 51A could be used to enact legislation that is adversely discriminatory. The Panel states that the preamble which acknowledges ‘the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ will mitigate this risk. However, a preamble is only used to resolve an ambiguity within a text. The power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is not particularly ambiguous. The Panel’s predicts laws passed pursuant to s 51A would be assessed on whether they broadly benefit the group concerned. The actual word used is ‘advancement’ which would be interpreted differently to ‘benefit’. Furthermore, the High Court is not always ready to embrace a value judgement such as one based ‘benefit’. Credit should be given to the Panel for this proposal. The preamble to Section 51A constitutionally recognises the history, culture and contributions of Indigenous Australians. The new head of power will likely ensure that current legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) will continue to operate. Section 51A also removes parliament’s power to enact laws with regards to a person’s race. This proposal addresses the apartheid nature of our constitution. However, Section 51A is not the white knight which was hoped for. It will be the courts who decide whether this new power is ambiguous. If Section 51A is found to be ambiguous, the courts will have significant discretion in interpreting the meaning of â€Å"advancement†. To overcome these issues, the panel has recommended that a racial non-discrimination provision (S116A) be added to the constitution. Inserting section 116A There are both policy and legal issues concerning section 116A. Firstly, Australia has a history of avoiding constitutional entrenchments of rights. The proposed anti-discrimination provision only protects racial groups. Section 116A may be viewed as privileging anti-racial discrimination over anti-sex discrimination or anti-homophobic discrimination. The first legal consideration is which groups will be protected by section 116A. Jewish people are recognized as an ethnic group but Muslims are not. It is uncertain whether Muslims would receive the same protection as Jews. Furthermore, would a person who converted to Judaism receive identical protection as a person who was born Jewish? The second legal issue is how Section 116A will affect existing state and commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. For example, Anti-discrimination state law authorise discrimination in the employment of actors for reasons of ‘authenticity’. In addition, sections 12 and 15 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) permits people to discriminate when they are searching for someone to share or work with in their home. Once again, it will be for the court to decide if these provisions are constitutionally invalid. The panel has affirmed that S116A (2) will support laws enacted under s 51 (xxvi) and section 51A. Like section 51A, section 116A could be interpreted by the courts in ways that were not intended. The courts will have significant discretion in determining what â€Å"is for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage†. An important issue for the Indigenous community is the Northern Territory Intervention. In Wurridjal v Commonwealth, the high court upheld the government’s partial repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act under the race powers. The court also upheld the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act pursuant to section 51 (xxix). Due to the principle of dual characterisation, it is unlikely that S116A will provide an avenue for Indigenous people to contest the intervention. S116A is probably the most controversial recommendation as it concerns equality before the law. This issue is probably better dealt with by an expert panel assessing a Bill of Rights. To achieve a similar result, the panel could propose that section 51A has an accompanying provision similar to 116A(2). Insert section 127A. Section 127A is a provision which recognises Indigenous languages as the original language of Australia. A separate language provision is necessary to capture the importance of traditional languages within Indigenous culture. Section 127A also acknowledges that English is the national language of Australia. The Panel rejected a submission suggesting ‘all Australian citizens shall have the freedom to speak, maintain and transmit the language of their choice’. The Panel did not want to give rise to legal challenges regarding the right to deal with government in languages other than English. It is unclear what practical consequence would flow from s127A. Section 127A could be used to secure funding for Indigenous languages on the grounds of ‘national heritage’. Nonetheless, the Panel does not intend for this provision to give rise to new legal rights. S127A is symbolically important and is an appropriate way of constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians. Summary of analysis This analysis concludes that the five proposals put forward by the panel appropriately balance substantive reform and symbolic significance. As a result, the Panel should be congratulated. If the Panel’s goal was to remove overtly racist tones within the Australian Constitution then they have succeeded. If the panels objective was to definitively correct the wrongs of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Intervention then they have failed. The amendments proposed do not sufficiently address racial discriminatory acts passed under other heads of power. Section 116A(2) has been perceived as a tasteful reformulation of the races power. Furthermore, the proposals provides the courts substantial discretion in interpreting terms such as â€Å"overcoming disadvantage†, â€Å"advancement† and â€Å"group†. In essence, the most important issue does not concern symbolic change or substantive reform. It is simply a question of which proposals will gain bipartisan support. Conclusion The panel’s proposals could succeed at referendum. Firstly, Australians are more likely to support something substantive than purely symbolic. Secondly, this is not an issue which would be perceived as a ‘politicians’ proposal. Australians are hesitant to support proposals perceived as self-serving. Thirdly, the Panel indicates that its proposals are capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians. Nonetheless, to succeed at referendum, the support from the Federal opposition government and all State governments is essential. It is very easy, and sometimes attractive, for the federal Opposition to oppose a referendum. It can be a useful way of generating a negative public reaction to the government and its agenda. Since 2010, the Coalition has fought the government on nearly every political issue. Even when the parties agree in principle, they have different ways of solving the issue. For example, both parties are for off-shore processing of illegal immigrants but disagree on where and how it should be done. Both parties are committed to recognising Indigenous Australians within the constitution. So far, the LNP has said it will consider substantive reform but has only committed to preambular recognition. The Panel not only recommends substantive reform but also addresses racial equality before the law. It is very uncertain whether the LNP will support a policy so different to their 2010 election promise. The next federal election is only 18 months away. If the referendum and election are held concurrently, there is more incentive for the Coalition to oppose the Panel’s recommendation. It would be disastrous for the nation if the referendum fails. The ‘gap’ will swell and the international community will view Australia as a nation of racists. It could be argued that the Government should have appointed a bipartisan panel rather than an independent panel. A bipartisan panel may not have produced ‘better’ recommendations to those of the Panel. They would, however, have generated proposals that both parties would stand behind. Bibliography * ABC Television, ‘Asylum seeker stand-off intensifies’, The Midday Report, 20 December 2011. < http://www.abc. net. au/news/2011-12-20/bowen-seeks-bipartisan-meeting-on-offshore-processing/3739984> at 29 April 2012. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australian Human Rights Commission’, . * Kerr, Christian, ‘Libs baulk on referendum support’, The Australian, 30 January 2012 < http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/libs-baulk-on-referendum-support/story-fn9hm1pm-1226256684571>. * Keyzer, Patrick, Principles of Australian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia: 3rd ed, 2010). * Kildea, Paul, ‘More than mere symbolism’, Australian Financial Review, 10 February 2012. * Kirby, Michael, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Australians: Challenge for a Parched Continent, Law Council of Australia, Old Parliament House, Canberra, Friday 22 July 2011 Discussion Forum ‘Constitutional Change: Recognition or Substantive Rights? ’. * Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Discussion Paper, 19 March 2011. * LexisNexis AU, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’90 Constitutional Law’ [90. 1620]. * McHugh, Michael, Australian Constitutional Landmarks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). * McQuire, Amy, ‘Constitutional reform report sparks mixed reviews’, Tracker, 19 January 2012. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Agreement-making: the need for democratic principles, individual rights and equal opportunities in Indigenous Australia’ (2011) 36 Alternative Law Journal 3. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Indigenous constitutional recognition, non-discrimination and equality before the law: why reform is necessary’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 26. * Morse, Bradford, â€Å"Indigenous Provisions in Constitutions Around the World† 2011 Paper located at . * Pengelley, Nicholas, ‘Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act – Must Laws Based on the Race Power be for the Benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders- and What has Bridge Building got to do with the Race Power Anyway’ (1998) 20 Sydney Law Review 144. * Prior, Flip, ‘Recognition poll unlikely, days Dodson’, The West Australian, 11 April 2012. * Rintoul, Stuart, ‘Race power opens Pandora’s box’, The Australian, 22 December 2011 * Rowse, Tim, ‘The practice and symbolism of the ‘race power’: rethinking the 1967 referendum’ (2008) 19 Australian Journal of Anthropology 1. * Sawer, G, ‘The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigine’ (1966) 2 FL Rev 17. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 280]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 300]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 430]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 450]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 460]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 480]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 190]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 240]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 7 International Law’ [1. 7. 180]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 1 Constitutional Law’ [19. 1. 230]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 5 Federal constitutional system’ [19. 5. 157. 1]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 160] * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 350]. * Twomey, Ann, Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Explained (University of Sydney Law School Constitutional Reform Unit, 26 January 2012). * Ward, Alexander, ‘At the Risk of Rights: Does true recognition require substantive reform? ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Review 25. * Watson, Nicole, ‘The Northern Territory Emergency Response – Has It Really Improved the Lives of Aboriginal Women and Children? ’ (2011) 35 Australian Feminist Law Journal 147. * Williams, George, ‘Recognising Indigenous peoples in the Australian Constitution: what the Constitution should say and how the referendum can be won’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 1. * Winckel, Anne, ‘Recognising Indigenous Peoples in the Preamble: Implications, Issues and Interpretation’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 22. Case List * Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1 * Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 * Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150 [69]. * Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1988) 195 CLR 337 * Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 * Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 * Leak v Commonwealth (1997) 187 CLR 579. * Miller v Wertheim [2002] FCAFC 156 [14]; * Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 * Wurridjal v The Cth (2009) 237 CLR 309 Legislation List. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth) * Australian Constitution Act 1975 (Cth) * Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) * Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) * Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) * Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) * Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) * Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) * Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) * Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Nsw) ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: Discussion Paper March 2011 part 1. 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 2 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 3 ]. Alexander Ward, ‘At the Risk of Rights: Does True Recognition Require Substantive Reform’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 3, 3. [ 4 ]. Ibid. [ 5 ]. Ibid. [ 6 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 7 ]. Ibid [4]. [ 8 ]. Ibid [5. 3]. [ 9 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 25. [ 10 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 11 ]. Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1, [36], [44]. [ 12 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 13 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 24. [ 14 ]. Ibid. [ 15 ]. Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, pages 665-714. [ 16 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 4 at 25 April 2012. [ 17 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 3 at 23 April 2012. [ 18 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 6 at 25 April 2012. [ 19 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 20 ]. Ibid [6]. [ 21 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 22 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 51 (xxvi). [ 23 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 4 at 23 April 2012. [ 24 ]. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168. [ 25 ]. Ibid [169-170]. [ 26 ]. Ibid. [ 27 ]. Ibid. [ 28 ]. Ibid [174]. [ 29 ]. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case) (1998) 195 CLR 337. [ 30 ]. Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth). [ 31 ]. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). [ 32 ]. Ibid. [ 33 ]. Ibid [416-7]. [ 34 ]. Ibid [379-381]. [ 35 ]. Thomson Reuters Legal Online, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia (at 15 January 1998) 19 Government, ’19. 5 Federal Constitutional System’ [19. 5 – 157. 1] [ 36 ]. Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth). [ 37 ]. (1983) 158 CLR 1. [ 38 ]. Ibid. [ 39 ]. Ibid [5 – 8]. [ 40 ]. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) [ 41 ]. Western Australia v The Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373. [ 42 ]. Ibid.

Analysis Of Film Production Of The Merchant Of Venice

Film Review Michael Radford s 2004 film production of The Merchant of Venice provides a well-executed and generally faithful rendition of Shakespeare s play. Radford s production especially succeeds in both its casting and set design that elevates the mood and drama contained in Shakespeare s text. In addition to the filming, particular attention was taken to following the original text, but some interesting in liberties in plot details were taken. Radford’s production serves as an exemplar of film adaptions of Shakespeare’s play; it takes the challenge of adapting the text to the screen with excellent casting, bold filming, and well imagined sets. Jeremy Irons as Antonio, the merchant, gives a convincing mix of optimism converted to pessimism as he prepares for his death in the court. Perhaps the best casting, Al Pacino plays an excellent Shylock that initially invokes the movie watcher’s empathy then turns quickly into an enraged, psychopathic persona reminiscent to his ch aracters in Scarface or Godfather. Particularly, Pacino shows off his talent in the famous ‘Hath not a Jew eyes’ monologue where Pacino takes us through a full emotional range of compassion, sympathy, to scorching rage. Similarly, Radford uses this scene to show off his directorial chops: the scene uses a ‘follow shot’ in which the camera follows Pacino’s character as he crosses the dark Venetian streets, through a brothel to find Antonio’s comrades, and back into the streets where the heart of hisShow MoreRelatedMacbeth9435 Words   |  38 Pages------------------------------------------------- Macbeth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is about Shakespeare s play. For other uses, see  Macbeth (disambiguation). A poster for a  c.  1884 American production ofMacbeth, starring Thomas W. Keene. Depicted, counter clockwise from top-left, are: Macbeth and Banquo meet the  witches; just after the murder ofDuncan; Banquo s ghost; Macbeth duels Macduff; and Macbeth. Macbeth  is a play written by  William Shakespeare. It is consideredRead MorePorn and Censorship15240 Words   |  61 Pagessexually explicit material that is wholly or primarily designed to produce sexual arousal (i.e., whose only or overriding aim is to produce sexual arousal) and material whose aim is to do this in order to make some other artistic or political point. The film, Last Tango in Paris arguably aims to arouse audiences, but this is not its primary aim. It does so in order to make a broader political point. It is sometimes assumed that pornography, in this second sense, is published and consumed by a small andRead MoreMarketing Management130471 Words   |  522 Pages INTRODUCTION: The apex body in United States of America for the Marketing functions, American Marketing Association (AMA) defines marketing as â€Å"Marketing consists of those activities involved in the flow of goods and services from the point of production to the point of consumption. The AMA has since amended its definition to read as: â€Å"Marketing is an organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, and delivering value to customers and for managing customer relationshipsRead MoreBanking Concepts and Practices39548 Words   |  159 Pagesand Rome. EUROPE: Many European countries established public banks either for facilitating commerce or to serve the government. Begun as an office for transfer of public debt, The Bank of Venice [1157] is the most ancient bank. The Bank of Amsterdam was established in 1609 to meet the needs of the merchants of the city. It accepted all kinds of specie deposits to be withdrawn or transferred to another account later using a certificate valid for six months. These written orders in the course ofRead MoreInternational Management67196 Words   |  269 Pages The revised or newly added â€Å"Integrative Cases† positioned at the end of each main part of the text were created exclusively for this edition and provide opportunities for reading and analysis outside of class. Review questions provided for each case are intended to facilitate lively and productive written analysis or in-class discussion. Our â€Å"Brief Integrative Cases† typically explore a specific situation or challenge facing an individual or team. Our longer and more detailed â€Å"In-Depth Integrative