AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP TEST Government:  Federal State  Head of State: Queen Elizabeth II  Head of Government: Kevin Rudd, Labor  Opposition: Shadow Cabinet structure European Settlement  First a prison settlement  First settlers arrived in 1788  Australia was declared Terra Nullius ( no inhabitants) though Aborigines had been there for more than 40,000 years. How to become an Australian Citizen ( for migrants):  have passed a test  be aged 18 years or over  be a permanent resident ( in Australia > 4 years)  satisfy the residence requirement ( you really live in Australia)  be likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia  and be of good character. Pros and cons of the Australian citizenship test (from Newcomers Network) http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiri es/2004-07/citizenship_testing/submissions/sub36.pdf Pros  general Australian public supports the scheme ( good electoral measure)  with four years of living in Australia, migrants should have a reasonable level of English Language Skills  formal process --> perception of ‘nation building.’ --> it takes personal effort to pass the test  Some believe it is harder to be ‘extreme’ if people understand what ‘mainstream’ is Cons  The total cost for applicants has doubled and this may cause financial difficulties for some applicants.  not focusing on the essential skills that Australian Citizens need for everyday life  One can pass a test and still reject the principles it encourages  May generate a rise in profiteers who will seek to charge extra money to help people pass the test  People with a strong accent and poor pronunciation can pass the test  The government chooses the questions: possible ideological bias

Etat fédéral, chef d’Etat: Elizabeth II, chef de gouvernement, Kevin Rudd Travailliste.Opposition institutionnalisée. Colonisation D’abord une colonie pénitencière, premiers colons fin 18ème, terre déclaréeTerra Nullius alors que les Aborigènes étaient présents depuis plus de 40000 ans Nationalité australienne Conditions pour les immigrés: réussir le test Avoir plus de 18 ans, avoir vécu en Australie plus de 4 ans, y résider de manière continue, être de bonne moralité

Le pour et le contre Pour Mesure populaire 4 ans en Australie pour pouvoir passer le test  suppose une maitrise satisfaisante de la langue Processus formalisé qui nécessite un travail, un effort, donc positif, preuve d’une volonté d’intégration. Une meilleure compréhension des valeurs de la nation permettrait d’amoindrir les comportements extrémistes Contre La question du coût pour les candidats Pas d’évaluation des compétences indispensables au quotidien. Possibilité de réussir le test sans partager les valeurs promues. Des organismes pourraient exploiter les immigrés en proposant des formations à des coûts élevés. Les compétences orales ne sont pas évaluées. Les questions sont choisies par le gvnt.

THE STOLEN GENERATIONS Between 1910 and 1970 up to 100,000 Aboriginal children were taken forcibly from their families by police or welfare officers . What happened to them? • Most were raised in Church or state institutions. • Many suffered physical and sexual abuse. Food and living conditions were poor. • They received little education, and were expected to go into low grade domestic and farming work.

Entre 1910 et 1970, on estime que 100,000 enfants aborigènes ont été enlevés à leurs familles.  La plupart étaient élevés dans institutions gouvernementales.  Ils étaient souvent maltraités, les conditions de vie étaient difficiles.  Ils étaient formés au travail domestique ou agricole.

Why were they taken? They were taken because it was Federal and State Government policy that Aboriginal children - especially those of mixed Aboriginal and European descent - should be removed from their parents. • The main motive was to ‘assimilate’ Aboriginal children into European society over one or two generations by denying and destroying their Aboriginality. • Speaking their languages and practicing their ceremonies was forbidden • They were taken miles from their country. • Parents were not told where their children were and could not trace them. • Children were told that they were orphans THE APOLOGY In the 1990s the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission started a national inquiry into the practice of removing children. The Bringing Them Home report was released in 1997. One of the key recommendations of the report was an official apology from the government, as well as financial compensation for the suffering caused by the government. Under the previous Howard Government the Commonwealth Parliament did not agree to a full apology but expressed ‘deep and sincere regret’ for unspecified past injustices. In 2007 a new Labor Government was elected, and promised to finally make an official apology to the Stolen Generations. At the first session of the new Federal Parliament, in February 2008, the new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued an official apology to the Stolen Generations on behalf of the Government. During the apology the Prime Minister ruled out financial compensation for the Stolen Generations.

 L’objectif était d’assimiler les enfants métis à la population générale, en faisant disparaître leur héritage aborigène.  Il leur était ainsi interdit de parler leur langue maternelle ou de pratiquer leurs cérémonies.  Ils étaient séparés de leur famille par des milliers de kms. On leur répétait qu’ils étaient orphelins, leurs familles ne pouvaient obtenir de leur nouvelles.

Dans les années 1990, une commission publique s’intéresse à ces pratiques. Les conclusions furent publiées dans le rapport Bringing them home en 1997. Il y était préconisé des excuses nationales ainsi qu’une indemnisation financière. Le gouvernement Howard ( 96-07) a toujours refusé de suivre ces recommandations. En 2007, le nouveau premier ministre travailliste ouvre la session parlementaire en présentant des excuses nationales aux Aborigènes. Toute compensation financière a toutefois été exclue.

UK : THE ID CARD SCHEME ID CARDS TIMETABLE Nov: First foreign nationals 2009: Airport workers 2010: Voluntary take-up Will it be compulsory to have an ID card? Not initially. Why is the UK getting identity cards? The government says it wants to give people a sure way of proving they are who they say they are. It argues ID cards will increase national security, tackle identity fraud, prevent illegal working and improve border controls. What information will be on the cards? The card will contain basic identification information including a photograph of the card holder, along with their name, gender and date of birth. A microchip will link it to a biometric database holding a person's fingerprints. What are the objections? Critics say identity cards interfere with civil liberties, are too expensive and will do little to tackle problems like terrorism. And some are worried the cards would force illegal immigrants into avoiding contact with hospitals and police. Why did Britain get rid of ID cards after World War II? During WWII , the ID card was seen as a way of protecting the nation from Nazi spies. But in 1952, Winston Churchill's government scrapped the cards. The feeling was that in peacetime they simply were not needed.

2011: High volume roll-out 2015: 90% foreign nationals covered 2017: Full roll-out? Les Britanniques ne sont pour l’instant pas obligés d’avoir une carte d’identité. Le gouvernement a mis en place ce projet afin de renforcer la sécurité nationale et la sécurité aux frontières, de lutter contre les usurpations d’identité et l’immigration clandestine. Y figureront le nom, une photo, le nom, le sexe et la date de naissance. Une puce électronique reliera la carte à une base de données contenant les empreintes digitales du détenteur. Certains pensent que ces cartes sont une atteinte aux libertés civiques, que leur coût est trop important. Certains s’inquiètent que les clandestins n’osent plus se diriger vers la police ou les hôpitaux. Les Britanniques avaient déjà eu des cartes d’identité, pendant la guerre. S’en débarasser fut l’un des symboles de la victoire.

What else might explain the reluctance of British people towards the ID card scheme? The government lost computer discs containing the entire child benefit records, including the personal details of 25 million people in 2007. Many saw this as the "final blow for the ambitions of this government to create a national ID database" as "they simply can not be trusted with people's personal information".

La perte de disques contenant les informations personnelles d’un grand nombre de familles en 2007 a renforcé le sentiment de méfiance face au projet – le gouvernement est-il capable de garder ces données confidentielles ?

US: DEBATE ON LOWERING THE DRINKING AGE Amethyst Initiative The Amethyst Initiative is an organization made up of U.S. college presidents and chancellors that in July 2008 launched a movement calling for the reconsideration of U.S. drinking age laws, particularly the minimum age of 21. Initiated by John McCardell, the movement is currently supported by 134 college presidents who signed a statement proclaiming, "It’s time to rethink the drinking age". According to Greek and Roman legend, amethysts protected their owners from drunkenness. Prohibition in the United States Prohibition is the period from 1919 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The "Volstead Act" is the popular name for the National Prohibition Act. Mafia activities were limited until 1920, when they exploded because of the introduction of Prohibition. Prohibition became increasingly unpopular during the Great Depression, the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed with ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933.

MADD Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a non-profit organization that seeks to stop drunk driving, support those affected by drunk driving and prevent underage drinking. It was founded in 1980.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 The legal age for alcohol in the USA is 21 years old. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds. The national law specifically prohibits purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages. It does not prohibit persons under 21 from drinking.

Une centaine de présidents d'universités américaines (parmi lesquelles de grandes institutions, comme Duke) ont signé avec John McCardell un texte déplorant le caractère contre-productif de la loi qui, depuis 1984, fixe l’âge minimum pour consommer de l’alcool à 21 ans. Aux États-Unis, la prohibition fut établie par le 18e amendement de la Constitution et par le Volstead Acten 1919. Le 19e amendement a été retiré en 1933 par la ratification du 21e amendement de la Constitution. La prohibition fournit une opportunité alléchante pour le crime organisé de mettre sur pied des filières d'importations, des fabriques ou encore un réseau illégal de distribution de boissons alcoolisées aux États-Unis, notamment au travers des speakeasies. MADD (mères contre l'alcool au volant) est une association préoccupée par l'alcool au volant et engagée à y mettre fin

La limite des 21 ans est en vigueur dans tous les Etats américains depuis qu'une loi de 1984 a supprimé des subventions pour les autoroutes à tout Etat qui ne l'appliquerait pas.

UK: NO WIN NO FEE Since when? A decade has now passed since the Access to Justice Act 1999 was adopted. The aim of the Act was to make it easier for individuals to bring legal action without burdening the rapidly increasing legal aid budget. This it did by enabling lawyers to work on a 'no-win, no-fee' basis - allowing them to recover their fees from the losing party. Legal aid funding was withdrawn from a number of categories of legal cases, most notably personal injury.

La loi de 1999 sur l’accès à la justice a autorisé ces accords conditionnels sur les frais et honoraires dans les litiges relatifs à des dommages corporels. Cela devait permettre d’alléger le budget de l’aide juridictionnelle tout en permettant un accès à la justice aussi large que possible.

Les accords conditionnels sur les frais et honoraires supposent un accord suivant The solicitor and client agree on the fee which would normally be lequel l’avocat accepte de ne fixer aucun charged for such a case. The agreement also states what the solicitor’s honoraire si l’affaire est perdue, mais ‘success fee’ will be. This can be an uplift of up to 100 per cent of the réclamera un honoraire accru si l’affaire est How conditional fees work:

normal fee. If the solicitor does not win the case, then the client pays nothing. If the solicitor is successful then the client pays the fee plus the success fee. Most solicitors will also include a cap on the success fee, which means that it cannot be more than 25 per cent of the damages which are awarded to the successful claimant. This is easier to understand by looking at an example: Normal fee Success fee Cap on success fee

£2,000 £1,000 25%

Result of the case A. Case is lost B. Case is won: client gets £20,000 damages + £1,000 C.Case is won Client gets £2,000 damages £500

Client pays Nothing £3,000

£2,000

£2,500

£2,000+

gagnée. Ces honoraires conditionnels, permettent éventuellement de doubler les honoraires. Ce système peut toutefois revenir cher au client, qui est souvent contraint de prendre une assurance afin d’éviter d’avoir à payer les frais de l’autre partie en cas de perte du procès. Le troisième exemple ( C) montre que même si le client se voit attribuer des dommages et intérêts, il peut ne pas avoir intérêt à engager une action en justice

There is still the problem that a person who loses the case will normally be ordered to pay the costs of the other side. To help protect against this it is possible to insure against losing a case. The insurance premium will have to be paid in advance even if the case is eventually won. This can cause problems to people who cannot afford the cost of the premium.

TRIAL LAWYERS What is arbitration? Arbitration is an alternative method of resolving disputes in which two parties present their individual sides of a complaint to an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. The arbitrator, who is supposed to be neutral, then weighs the facts and arguments of both parties and decides the disputes. What is mandatory binding arbitration? In mandatory binding arbitration, an insurance requires a patient to agree to submit any dispute that may arise to binding arbitration prior to being seen by the physician. The patient is required to waive his right to sue, to participate in a class action lawsuit, or to appeal. Why do doctors ask their patients to sign these agreements? Doctors find it's a good remedy for them to counter what are increasingly expensive malpractice insurance premiums. Frivolous lawsuits Refers to lawsuits that are based on a theory that seems absurd, or where the claim results in damages that greatly exceed what one would expect from reading a brief summary of the case. Awards for medical malpractice are sometimes derided as frivolous (in this sense of meaning "excessive"). Amendment to Florida’s constitution SECTION 26. Claimant's right to fair compensation.-(a) Article I, Section 26 is created to read "Claimant's right to fair compensation." In any medical liability claim involving a contingency fee, the claimant is entitled to receive no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs, whether received by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of defendants. The claimant is entitled to 90% of all damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This provision is self-executing and does not require implementing legislation.

L’arbitrage constitue une alternative au procès soumis aux juridictions de l'Etat par la désignation de personnes privées que les parties chargent de juger leur différend. Certain médecins font signer à leurs clients des formulaires par lesquels ils renoncent à leur droit à un procès devant un jury et acceptent de recourir à un arbitrage en cas d’erreur médicale. Les primes d’assurance sont en constante augmentation. En faisant signer ces formulaires, les médecins voient leurs primes d’assurance se stabiliser.  Procès abusifs

En ce qui concerne les erreurs médicales, les avocats ne peuvent toucher plus 30% des premiers $250,000 de dommages et intérêts perçus par leurs clients. Ils ne peuvent toucher que 10% des dommages attribués au delà de $250,000.

(b) This Amendment shall take effect on the day following approval by the voters.

CCTV CCTV in Britain's streets can trace its genesis back to a limited system set up for the Queen's coronation in 1953. By the 1960s there was permanent CCTV in some London streets. Now there are an estimated four million cameras in the country, viewing us as many as 300 times a day. CCTV is everywhere Pros : -Installing CCTV cameras provides evidence of acts -any suspicious or criminal activity can be accessed to -acts as a crime deterrent (people are less likely to commit a crime if they know they are being watched .) -instils a sense of security in the population .On condition that video footage is being monitored on a regular and timely basis. Employees and customers will feel protected by the twenty-four hour watch the cameras provide. Cons : -The cost of video security set up and maintenance can be prohibitive. - Invasion of privacy rights may pose legal liability .

Prémices du système : couronnement de la Reine Elizabeth II. Dans les années 1960, présentes dans quelques rues londoniennes. Aujourd’hui au moins 4millions  filmés 300 fois par jour. Pros : - L’installation des cameras de surveillance fournit une preuve des délits commis - il est possible d’accéder à toutes les activités criminelles - agit comme élément dissuasif (les individus sont moins susceptibles de commettre un crime s’ils se savent observés) - offre un sentiment de sécurité à la population à condition que les enregistrements vidéo soient effectués sur une base horaire régulière .Les employés et les clients se sentiront protégés par une surveillance 24 heures sur 24 Cons : -Le prix de l’installation et de la maintenance des cameras de sécurité peuvent être prohibitifs. -Les cameras peuvent poser des problèmes légaux d’atteinte à la vie privée