State government policy and legislation had an overriding influence on Aboriginal Australians with the Commonwealth involved in a secondary manner through legislation that limited access to citizenship and welfare rights, often in terms of degree of descent and in legislative definitions of Aboriginality. Indeed, during this period the removal of children from Indigenous parents shifted from being an ad hoc state practice to a strategy agreed on by all governments; state and federal.
In the s, as more voices, particularly Indigenous ones, drew attention to the lack of rights and the meagre achievements of the assimilation policy, the Commonwealth began to reform the system within its own jurisdiction, removing various legal liabilities it had imposed, or let be placed, upon Indigenous Australians and sponsoring a referendum which cleared the way for greater Commonwealth involvement in the policy area.
These were punctuated with the setting up and dismantling of several different administrative and consultative mechanisms, and woven through with issues such as how to facilitate the gaining of socio-economic equality and the recognition of land and other rights. The recruitment policy was relaxed after heavy losses in the World War 1 and men who claimed one European parent were accepted for overseas service.
Ngarrindjeri elders presented to the Governor of South Australia a petition written by Ellen Kropinyeri which called upon the Governor not to sign into law the Aborigines Training of Children Act SA which provided for the removal of children. The call was not heeded. Frederick Maynard formed the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association to campaign for citizenship rights and fight the discrimination and denial of rights that Aboriginal returned servicemen experienced after World War 1.
Bleakley, to the Northern Territory. However Bruce promised Parliament that the interests of all Aborigines would benefit from the inquiry. Bleakley included proposed amendments to the Northern Territory Aboriginal Ordinances. Minister for Home Affairs, C. Many of the delegates argued for increased Commonwealth involvement in Aboriginal affairs but this was rejected by Abbott as not an agenda item. The Conference was attended by representatives of all states except Tasmania and the Commonwealth.
The conference exchanged ideas on the administration of Aboriginal affairs and agreed on uniform policy. Bleakley Chief Protector of Aboriginals, Queensland were the influential speakers. Twenty resolutions were passed. The most significant resolution sanctioned an assimilation policy:. This conference believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth, and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end.
The conference was open only to Aborigines and the following resolution was passed:. The resolution and speeches stressed the need for full citizenship rights for all Aboriginal people, that degree of descent or fairness of skin should not dictate access to rights, that the Commonwealth should have greater control over Aboriginal affairs and that Aborigines should be involved in policy decisions and their implementation.
Source: Abo Call, no. The Child Endowment Act extended child endowment to Aborigines who were not nomadic or dependent on government benefits. However, payments could be made to a third party and in some cases lesser payments could be made.
A War Service Land Settlement Agreement between the Commonwealth and states, entrenched in the War Service Land Settlement Agreements Act , enabled returned service personnel access to land under soldier settlement schemes. Following the agreement, the states and the Commonwealth enacted solider settlement legislation or amended existing legislation. As in the schemes introduced after World War 1, Indigenous personnel were not specifically excluded but the assessment procedures were prejudiced against them and many were rejected.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act specified that Aboriginal people had the right to enrol and vote at federal elections provided they were entitled to enrol for state elections or had served in the defence forces. The Menzies Government presided over a period that saw growing support for a policy of greater Commonwealth involvement in Aboriginal affairs.
During the s the influential Minister for Territories, Paul Hasluck, developed and implemented policy based on assimilation and social advancement. The s saw the growth of political movements critical of discriminatory measures, demanding the extension of rights, equal wages and campaigning for a referendum to change the Constitution and give the Commonwealth powers over Aboriginal affairs.
The motion was seconded by opposition member Kim Beazley Snr and it was passed unanimously. Paul Hasluck was appointed Minister for Territories, an office he held for the next twelve years and from which he had significant influence on Commonwealth policy in the area of Aboriginal affairs.
In tabling the report of the conference Hasluck stressed the importance of a policy of assimilation:. The recent Native Welfare Conference agreed that assimilation is the objective of native welfare measures. Assimilation means, in practical terms, that, in the course of time, it is expected that all persons of aboriginal blood or mixed blood in Australia will live as do white Australians. The acceptance of this policy governs all other aspects of native affairs administration.
Paul Hasluck, Paterson Brokensha, Perth, Hundreds of families were forced to leave their homelands because of contamination. The Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement FCAA was established at a meeting of organisations including churches, trade unions, student bodies, labour councils and various committees and councils for Aboriginal rights.
A meeting of federal and state ministers responsible for Aboriginal welfare agreed on a policy of assimilation. The Minister, Paul Hasluck, announced the policy in a statement to Parliament. It was not compulsory for Aboriginal people to register, but once they had, voting was compulsory. A national campaign was launched by the Federal Council for Aboriginal Advancement FCAA for a referendum to amend section 51 xxvi of the Constitution and repeal section of the Constitution and thereby give the Commonwealth power in Aboriginal affairs.
The Yolngu people of Yirrkala, faced with square miles being excised from the Arnhem Land Reserve for a Nabalco bauxite mine, sent two bark petitions to the Federal Government seeking Commonwealth recognition of their rights to their traditional lands on the Gove Peninsula. Kim Beazley MP senior moved that one of the bark petitions be printed and tabled. Source: House of Representatives, Debates , 14 August , p.
As most Aboriginal activists were focused on immediate political goals such as land rights, much of the work of publicising and promoting the concept of a treaty was taken on by the Aboriginal Treaty Committee, a non-Aboriginal organisation of prominent citizens including Dr H.
Coombs and the poet Judith Wright. This committee was convinced that without a treaty or similar instrument, Acts of Parliament would be too subject to the winds of political change. It proposed that the treaty, covenant or convention include provisions relating to:. The Aboriginal Treaty Committee succeeded in having the treaty question referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which reported in In its report, Two Hundred Years Later , the Senate Committee argued that past treaties made with indigenous populations in former British colonies were not very useful 'as precedents for a compact between Aborigines and the Commonwealth' as they were 'concluded at a time when the term treaty did not possess so fixed a meaning in international law as it does today', that is as 'an internationally recognised agreement between two nations'.
The Committee further argued that the rights which indigenous people now had in countries such as New Zealand, the US and Canada, had come not from the treaties but from the domestic law applying to everyone within the nation's territorial boundaries. The Committee considered using the Aboriginal word 'Makarrata', but as it was a word peculiar to one Aboriginal linguistic group preferred to use the word 'compact'.
It concluded that although at the time of settlement sovereignty may have resided in the Aboriginal people:. In particular, they are not a sovereign entity under our present law so that they can enter into a treaty with the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that if it is recognised that sovereignty did inhere in the Aboriginal people in a way not comprehended by those who applied the terra nullius doctrine at the time of occupation and settlement, then certain consequences flow which are proper to be dealt with in a compact between the descendants of those Aboriginal peoples and other Australians.
The Committee advised that its 'preferred method of legal implementation of a compact' between the Aboriginal population and the Commonwealth would be a referendum to amend the Constitution. The Senate Committee's report did not immediately lead to any new treaty initiatives and the Aboriginal Treaty Committee, finding a lack of political will to implement a treaty, ceased its activities in February Progress towards a 'treaty' may have reached an impasse in , but with the ALP winning office that year, 'self-determination' returned to the Commonwealth Government's vocabulary and 'self-sufficiency' was dropped.
This Government Similarly, in the ALP's , and platforms, support is pledged to 'the policy of self-determination' and in its April paper entitled Achievements in Aboriginal Affairs to , the Government cited the establishment of incorporated Aboriginal controlled organisations as a measure of success of the policy of 'self-determination'.
The Hawke Government's concept of self-determination, however, did not differ greatly from the previous Government's concept of 'self-management' and did not carry any of the connotations carried by the term 'self-determination' as used in International Law. While changes in Departmental policy represent a notable advance and a significant break with the past, it is still unclear whether they embody a real commitment to Aboriginal self-determination as distinct from a policy of multiculturalism that could equally apply to other racial or ethnic groups.
Self-determination, which would enable Aboriginal people to control their destiny and adapt their laws, culture and traditions, is essential to their continuation as a viable and identifiable race. Multiculturalism which acknowledges differences between different communities is not enough. Many indigenous activists, disappointed among other things by the Government's retreat in March from their pursuit of a system of national land rights, sought to link the domestic use and international meaning of the term.
For example, Paul Coe, the then Chair of the National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service Secretariat, argued in a United Nations Week Speech, October , that international law recognises the Aboriginal people's statehood and that the Commonwealth of Australia must recognise 'the right to self-determination of the nation of the Aboriginal people'.
Despite oppression and attempts at indoctrination in colonialists' schools, our inherent belief that the members of our communities collectively have the right to rule, that an individual's responsibility and right is to protect himself by guarding this collective right, remains.
Professor Erica Irene A. Daes, Chair of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, made it clear that she believed there was a general Aboriginal aspiration for self-determination and that by this they meant having control over their land, their laws and all aspects of their lives.
Consequentially she recommended that:. While the exact powers and functions of such self-governments should be the subject of negotiations between the parties, the minimum goal should be powers sufficient for the protection of the group's collective right to existence and for the preservation of their identities. To this end, a secure financial basis must be created for the self-governments, preferably through the establishment of rights to land and resources, taxation powers and, when and if these are insufficient, the granting of lump sums for their free use.
The term 'self-determination', however, ended up being the main stumbling block to bi-partisan support for a resolution which church leaders had proposed parliamentarians pass as their first act in the new Federal Parliament House. The resolution in its final form read:. Although this resolution had already been modified to accommodate Opposition concerns e.
The Social activist Father Frank Brennan suggested:. At best, the proposed amendment was ambiguous suggesting that the entitlement to self-determination was universal but exercisable discretely by separate groups. At worst, it was ruthlessly assimilationist suggesting that self-determination could be exercised only collectively by all Australians The amendment was not accepted and the Opposition did not support the resolution. The Government continued to use the term but avoided using it in international fora 33 and domestically always appeared to try to link it with 'self-management'.
Thus the preamble to the Bill which established the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ATSIC , a body which was to combine the representative and consultative functions of the earlier NACC and NAC, with the budget and program responsibilities of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, declared the new body's objectives to be 'self-determination and self-management for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the Australian nation The Government's attempt to appear supportive of 'self-determination' while containing it within the parameters of 'self-management', led the House of Representative Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to note in that 'at times Aboriginal people and governments have talked past each other because they have used terminology loosely'.
The Late s and the Concept of a 'Compact'. In the late s, while the debate over self-determination gathered pace, the prospect of a treaty, a prospect which had receded from the political scene in , returned-sometimes under the alternate name of 'compact'. In September the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, who had been heavily lobbied by people such as the Aboriginal poet Kevin Gilbert and Mr Justice Michael Kirby, raised the possibility of a 'compact' between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.
Mr Howard, the then Leader of the Opposition, rejected the idea claiming: 'There is no way the Australian people will ever accept that in some way we are two nations within one-nor should they'. On 12 June , however, Mr Hawke effectively committed his government to concluding a compact by We, the indigenous owners and occupiers of Australia, call on the Australian Government and people to recognise our rights:. To self-determination and self-management, including the freedom to pursue our own economic, social, religious and cultural development;.
To compensation for the loss of use of our lands, there having been no extinction of original title;. To protection of and control of access to our sacred sites, sacred objects, artefacts, designs, knowledge and works of art;.
To the return of the remains of our ancestors for burial in accordance with our traditions;. To respect for and promotion of our Aboriginal identity, including the cultural, linguistic, religious and historical aspects, and including the right to be educated in our own languages and in our own culture and history;. A national elected Aboriginal and Islander organisation to oversee Aboriginal and Islander affairs;. A police and justice system which recognises our customary laws and frees us from discrimination and any activity which may threaten our identity or security, interfere sic with our freedom of expression or association, or otherwise prevent sic our full enjoyment and exercise of universally-recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Firstly, that there shall be a treaty negotiated between the Aboriginal people and the Government on behalf of all the people of Australia. Secondly, that many Aboriginal people should decide what it is you want to see in that treaty. The third step is that I have agreed that we should provide you with assistance to establish those consultation processes. In particular, that there should be a committee of seven of your traditional owners who will have the responsibility for organising those consultations with a view to organising an Australia-wide convention, which will represent the culmination of your own negotiations.
Fourthly, that when you have conducted these processes of consultations that we as a Government should then be prepared to receive and to consider the results of your thinking and your consultation.
And fifthly, we agree that these processes should start before the end of this year, and that we would expect and hope and work for the conclusion of such a treaty before the end of the life of this Parliament. There ensued much debate over how the process should go forward. Shirley McPherson, chair of the Aboriginal Development Commission, called for a treaty to be embodied in the Constitution. One contributor, the NCAO chair Geoff Clark, saw land rights as being crucial to the treaty issue, considered the working out of a consultation process a prerequisite to treaty negotiations and believed that there should be international monitoring-'A UN umpire if you like'.
The fifth option and the one favoured by Mr Mansell would recognise Aboriginal people as a separate nation:. Aboriginal people ought not to sell ourselves short by perceiving ourselves in terms of a unit of Australian society-an ethnic group or a minority-who are just getting a hard time.
We are in fact a nation of people and we ought to stand up and acknowledge it. If this is the case, then any agreement reached between Aborigines and Australia takes on a different status. And, it is not a status capable of being unilaterally enforced or not enforced by a white government as has been the case in New Zealand and the United States.
It means it comes under the purview of international law. At meetings in late and early the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs met with representatives of the NCAO to discuss how the compact consultations might be organised. The consultations, however, failed to get off the ground; the reasons included the lack of a representative Aboriginal organisation, the failure of the Government to allocate NCAO the funds budgeted for the consultations, the opposition of the Coalition parties and the preoccupation of the Minister with setting up the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission.
Talk of a treaty, however, persisted. On 2 December a full page advertisement signed by prominent Australians, including Dr Coombs, appeared in the metropolitan press.
The signatories called for political and financial support:. Only if popular support is strong and lasting in the months ahead will the Government keep its promise and the Aborigines win the recognition for which they have fought for years.
Mr Hawke himself revived the 'treaty' possibility in February during a visit to New Zealand for the th anniversary of the signing of the Waitangi treaty. He pledged his government would accelerate its efforts to make a treaty with Australia's Aboriginal population:. The simple position is that we will proceed with the concept of a treaty within Australia. I believe that the total Australian community, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, is going to be well-served by the achievement of that treaty.
It's not something that's imposed, it's something that emerges from, as far as possible, a coalescence of the wishes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people and a recognition by the non-Aboriginal community of the appropriateness of such an outcome. Warwick Smith, then Opposition Spokesperson on Aboriginal Affairs, argued, however, that it is impossible for a nation to have a treaty with itself:. A treaty will create hostility within the Australian community where it currently does not exist and will not advance the material well-being of the Aboriginal people.
At the end of the s a new term, widely used in North America, enjoyed a brief period of use in Australia.
Models ranged from the creation of an Aboriginal State with the powers of other Australian States it could be made up either of the various Aboriginal lands around Australia and have its parliament located in some central place such as Alice Springs or of one or two large continuous territories in Central and Northern Australia , to the recognition of traditional law, to constitutional guarantees of land rights, site protection and service delivery.
In November a five member Legislation Review Committee established by the Queensland Government produced a discussion paper Towards Self-Government and reported that:. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities consulted by the committee had no doubt about the survival of their rights. The committee was often asked why the Queensland and commonwealth parliaments, and the Australian High Court, must be the ultimate adjudicators of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders rights.
The question is important because it highlights a fundamental issue relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-government. Whatever the legal situation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people do not regard any powers to govern which they exercise as being 'derivative', or originating from any mainstream government.
The committee proposed legislation which would recognise the pre-existing rights of indigenous people to self-government and which would enable Aboriginal and Islander communities to opt, by referendum, to progressively assume responsibility for a wide range of service till many have all the powers of existing local authorities, many of the powers of state administrations and some of the powers of the federal government.
Although the Pitcairn descendants on Norfolk Island had their claims to special rights dismissed by the High Court of Australia in , Parliament recognised the 'special relationship of the [Pitcairn] descendants with Norfolk Island and their desire to preserve their traditions and culture'. We cannot avoid the question of Norfolk Island being part of Australia; yet at the same time we cannot be seen to be preventing the people who have lived there for so long from continuing to live in the way they have for so long.
We are determined to ensure that they are allowed to exercise a real sense of self-government. If the small Norfolk Island community of about permanent residents could exercise the right to elect a government with many of the powers of both federal and state governments education, health, taxation, immigration, law-and-order and social welfare so too, the argument went, could numerous Aboriginal communities. The word 'Reconciliation' had been introduced into the debate in when 14 heads of Australian Christian Churches issued a statement entitled 'Towards Reconciliation in Australian Society'.
That statement focused on the history of Aboriginal-European contact and conflict, the place of Aborigines in Australian society and the need for committed acts of reconciliation. Although the Church leaders failed to get Commonwealth parliamentarians to pass a motion in the first session in the new Parliament House embracing 'reconciliation', the term lived on. In August Father Frank Brennan and Professor James Crawford delivered a joint paper to the Australian Legal Convention in Sydney, calling for a 'charter of recognition' backed up by an independent commission rather than a treaty.
The Aboriginal Recognition Commission would be modelled on the Australian Law Reform Commission in that it would be chaired by a prominent Australian, invite submissions, hold public hearings and publish interim reports. It would hold a series of twelve annual meetings before 1 January , the anniversary of the first centenary of Federation.
The long-term aim of the Commission would be to present a draft Charter for Aboriginal Recognition to Commonwealth and State governments at a conference of Prime Minister and Premiers in , allowing 18 months for debate leading up to a referendum to approve the wording. By the Government appeared prepared to embrace the concept, not necessarily as a first choice for the way forward, but as the only choice left. The failure to achieve bi-partisan support for either a 'treaty', a 'compact' or a resolution backing the right of indigenous people to self-determination, and an ambivalence in the general community about what if anything should be included in a treaty, 51 had led the Government to see some merit in a change of rhetorical tack.
In January Robert Tickner, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, issued a discussion paper entitled Aboriginal Reconciliation which proposed the establishment by legislation of a Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation to facilitate a process of reconciliation between Australia's indigenous and wider communities.
The Government's initiative was supported by the Opposition and seemed to be endorsed in the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. The process of reconciliation was to be formally concluded by 1 January The council was to consult widely to determine whether the process would be advanced by a formal 'document of reconciliation' and, if so, make recommendations on the nature of such a document.
Expectations of the process of reconciliation varied enormously among advocates of Aboriginal rights. A former head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and later chair of the Arrernte Council of Central Australia, Charles Perkins, was reported as calling the process a big lie and a sell out. On the 10th December the then Prime Minister, Mr Keating, in his so-called 'Redfern Speech', publicly linked progress down the path to reconciliation with Australian society coming to terms with the past:.
And, as I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians. It begins, I think, with that act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life.
We brought the diseases. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us. With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds.
We failed to ask-how would I feel if this were done to me? As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us. The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation sought to further stimulate public discussion with the publication in of eight 'key issue' papers.
It is important to fully understand the recency of the official exclusion and control of indigenous Australians. Many now in their twenties went to separate schools, were not counted in a census until , and had their lives directed by managers or welfare officials; many now in their thirties were also kidnapped from their families and their links with their families were destroyed for many years; and those now in their fifties lived under harsh regimes-they were adults but had less rights than non-indigenous children of the time.
Paper no. The non-statutory options included area-specific protocols between various bodies, new inter-governmental agreements, and a 'treaty'. Statutory options included legislative recognition of indigenous rights in areas from self-government to customary law and a statutory Bill of Rights. Constitutional options included the insertion of a preamble acknowledging prior indigenous ownership of the land, constitutional recognition of a Bill of Rights, of specific indigenous rights and bodies, and or of federal, state and territory government obligations to indigenous people, the creation of reserved seats in Parliament, and replacing s.
Most, but not all. In the s some Torres Strait Islanders, led by Eddie Mabo, pursued their common law rights through the courts. On 3 June , after 10 years of litigation, the High Court decided that the common law recognises that native title may survive the acquisition of sovereignty by a colonising power. The Court found that native title did not arise out of a grant from a government but was a pre-existing customary ownership of land which has survived since pre-colonial times.
Indeed, the court implied that native title continued to exist elsewhere in Australia, wherever it has not been extinguished by governments and provided that the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups had maintained a relationship with their traditional country based on customary law. The judgement offered the recently established process of reconciliation a challenge and an opportunity, and the Government's response ended up coming in three phases.
The first phase of the Government's response was the Native Title Act , creating an opportunity for at least some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups to receive formal, legal recognition of their customary ownership of their country.
The second phase of the Government's response to the decision followed indigenous people lobbying for establishment of a land fund to help satisfy the land need of the dispossessed indigenous people, who, because of dispossession, would rarely be able to demonstrate the continuous connections to land required under Native Title legislative guidelines.
This led initially to expansion of the land acquisition programs within ATSIC to include the sub-component of native title, and then to the Federal Government establishing a new land fund and Indigenous Land Corporation to manage monies drawn down each year from the fund. The third phase in the Government's response was to be a Social Justice Package. The social justice package presents Australia with what is likely to be the last chance this decade to put a policy framework in place to effectively address the human rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as a necessary commitment to the reconciliation process leading to the centenary of Federation in In addition to this joint report, each body prepared its own report.
While all took a 'rights-based' approach to social justice and canvassed possibilities for ensuring greater indigenous political representation, each highlighted different issues. The Social Justice Commissioner's report called for the creation of an indigenous parliament. The Reconciliation Council's report urged considering dedicated indigenous seats in parliament.
Five other Reconciliation Council recommendations concerned 'displaced persons', with the Commission recommending that the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments:. All of these people came from western NSW, and all were threatened with loss of rations and liberties if they did not consent to participate. The Kinchela Boys Home was a controversial residence for Aboriginal boys taken from their families. But now - the building has been converted into a family rehabilitation centre Benelong Haven.
Aboriginal people in NSW. Reece states that:. The economic and political realities were masked by a view of Aborigines as primitive, if not sub-human, a view which revealed fundamental ignorance of Aboriginal cultures. Europeans were, Stanner has said:. That blindness … profoundly affected European conduct toward the Aborigines.
It reinforced two opposed views — that they were a survival into modern times of a protoid form of humanity incapable of civilization, and that they were decadents from a once-higher life and culture. It fed the psychological disposition to hate and despise those whom the powerful have injured … It allowed European moral standards to atrophy by tacitly exempting from canons of right, law, and justice acts of dispossession, neglect, and violence at Aboriginal expense.
Colonial Attitudes Harden. Thus with the expansion of settlement and continuing clashes on the frontiers, attitudes hardened. Depredations and punitive expeditions continued well into this century, especially in northern regions.
The reduction in the Aboriginal population, and a growing consciousness of the general mistreatment of Aboriginal people, combined with the need for more effective regulation of labour in pastoral areas to bring about changes in policy.
The House of Commo ns Select Committee on Aborigines, which had reported in , had recommended that there should be missionaries for Aboriginal people, protectors for their defence and special codes of law to protect them. Protectors were appointed, mostly by executive order, in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia at about this time; they were supposed to protect Aborigines from abuses and to provide the remnant populations around towns with some rations, blankets and medicine.
The right to marry was limited, as were other civil rights.
0コメント