And we are off - Aboriginal leaders say $1 billion 'not sorry enough'

skint said:

Talk about a rose-coloured glasses view of history. Manning Clark, eat your heart out! For example, many of the children were placed in orphanages and treated hideously. I had an aboriginal friend who was removed from here mother without consent. In her adoptive white family, she was repeatedly raped as a young girl and also physically abused. Was she better off? As a young bloke, I lived in the Territory and spent some time working as a jackeroo with many Aborigines. They were very much considered to be second class citizens. You don't fix a community by further dividing it.

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

skint
needless to say, I fully agree with you.

and bunyip
I can't find much in your post that doesn't fly in the face of the facts.

Like Julia and Disarray, you assume that the pre "Bringing them Home" spin is accurate, when it has been shown to be an absolute disgrace throughout the system. Massive percentages of institutionalisation, and sexual abuse etc (read a few of the posts back there).

Hell, we've collectively got problems no question. That recent incident in Geralton was a real worry. (beach murder of cricketer etc) - I'm including the responsible Ab elders/leaders in that one when I said "we've got problems".

Wouldn't it be great if we could sort out the past, get the sense of some sort of justice back on an even keel, and then eventually end up with a system that applies to all aussies.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen18.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/

Click to expand...

Julia said:

Leaving aside the question of compensation for a moment, I'd like to ask those who feel the Aborigines are in the dysfunctional state they are because of white people what remedy you feel would be appropriate?
Is the payment of multiple millions suddenly going to stop violence and sexual abuse?


Next question: it's clear that the sexual abuse of children is widespread in the communities. You are emphatically against the removal of children apparently, so are you in these circumstances condoning the leaving of these abused children (and those with the potential to be abused) with the offending communities rather than removing them (?stealing them) so they may be placed into white foster care?

These are my concerns. I don't care about the money one way or the other.
If it were to turn a dysfunctional people into human beings who genuinely wanted to uphold whatever valuable traditions may be left of their culture,
protect their women and children, and actually consider that making a contribution to our society in general might be more rewarding than living in the past, then I'm all for it.

Click to expand...

2020: could you consider a response to this please? You clearly think compensation should be paid: How do you think this will make the whole process of reconciliation better, i.e. how should it happen, who would actually get what money, how would it be determined, and how would we as taxpayers feel confident that it's not going to be spent on the aforementioned grog, 4 wheel drives, tinnies etc etc?
How would this monetary compensation ameliorate their plight in any direction?
Would there be conditions attached to how the funds were to be spent?

What would be your answer to "stealing" some of the current generation of children rather than leave then vulnerable to further sexual violence within their own communities?

As Disarray and others have said, the 'stolen generation' were not removed out of any sense of malevolence but in the genuine belief that their chances of a better life would be increased by so doing. Imo we are doing the current generation of abused children a dreadful disservice by leaving them in the hands of abusers.

Whilst I respect your point of view, you do tend to be big on the emotive stuff and very light on the practicalities and outcomes

Click to expand...

Julia said:

All I have ever said is that I believe the actions of those of our forebears who removed Aboriginal children from their homes were well intentioned.
I have never proposed that the outcome was in any way successful.
You are in no position to know the thinking of those who decided children would have a better future away from their communities.

Click to expand...

skint said:

Your confusing the current debate with the issues currently being discussed in the media and also parliament. Children, up until the late sixties, were taken from their families based soley on their skin colour. The whiter they were, the greater their chances of "salvation". As I mentioned previously,when a national census was conducted during that time, the well-intentioned "forebears" you refer to classified Aborigines as fauna. That's right, subhuman animals. Australian governments at the time also unashamedly promoted white people as superior beings. In short, they were unambiguously and openly racist.
By your line of reasoning, if some well-intentioned person kidnaps a child as they're wondering through Woollies because they believe they can give the child a better life (for say cultural or religous reasons), then they should get off without consequence. Good intentions based upon highly bigoted principles just don't cut it for mine.
As Will Smith (I think), stated recently, "I'm sure Hitler got out of bed each morning in the firm belief he was doing the right and proper thing". Hardly in the same ballpark, but such an extreme example of someone with so-called "good intentions" illustrates the extent to which using the "we meant well" line as completely without credibility.

Click to expand...

Julia said:

OK, Skint. That's a perfectly reasonable point of view. So what would you like to happen right now? How can all the mess be fixed?

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

thats a different thread Julia

the Tas Govt seems to disagree with you btw

Click to expand...

Julia said:

OK, Skint. That's a perfectly reasonable point of view. So what would you like to happen right now? How can all the mess be fixed?

Click to expand...

skint said:

The question of compensation is not what whether the money will do any good, but moreover it is whether a person is legally entitled to it.
For example,if 20/20 gets on "the sauce" and flies his hang-glider through my window, destroying my recently acquired Sydney Nolan (I wish) in the process, I'm entitled to sue for compensation. What I do with that money would be my business. I would be perfectly entitled to blow the whole shebang at the track if so chose. Doesn't alter the right to sue in the first place.
Fly safe 20/20!

Click to expand...

mvp6996 said:

We should do just give them a whole shx+ load of alcohol, dump them in the northern territory, say we're sorry and leave it at that.

They fr3@k!n want "equal rights", which pretty much means privileged rights. They want what normal working people have without having to do sh!+ for it. For hundreds of years they've been getting money from the government, and their fr3@k!n standard of living has gone backwards. If they wanted to be equal, then they would get off their lazy asses and get proper jobs and pay taxes like every one else.

I also say we shouldn't have to pay them anything. Imagine if the british had to pay all the people they colonised, they would be broke.

Any compensation should go to referendum and see how many people would support it.

Click to expand...

skint said:

...flies his hang-glider through my window, destroying my recently acquired Sydney Nolan (I wish) in the process, I'm entitled to sue for compensation. ...Fly safe 20/20!

Click to expand...

skint said:

Bugger*d if I know. Whatever has been proposed or implemented in the past, from both sides of politics, hasn't worked.

Click to expand...

Focus on basics instead of saying 'sorry': Nelson
Posted 2 hours 46 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 59 minutes ago
Federal Opposition leader Brendan Nelson says the Government should focus on the basics instead of considering an apology to Indigenous Australians.

There is speculation today that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd could use the state opening of Parliament on Feburary 12 to make a full apology to the Stolen Generations.

But Doctor Nelson says rising food and fuel prices are more urgent than saying 'sorry'.

He says the wider Australian community should be consulted before an apology is considered.

"Whatever the attitude of Australians towards this generation, apologising for things that were done by earlier generations, you've really got to ask yourself whether this is a high priority for the Australian Parliament," he said.

Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Jenny Macklin would not be drawn on whether the Government would say 'sorry' as soon as Parliament resumes next month.

She said legal advice had been sought on the nature of the apology and she was confident it would not lead to legal action.

"We are continuing to consult widely," she said. "What we want to do is get it right.

"We do want to make the apology as early as possible in the new Parliament, but we want to complete the consultations first."

She says she doubts issuing the apology will increase the chances of compensation claims.

"What we know is that each of the state parliaments have issued an apology and there haven't been any legal ramifications from that," she said.

Click to expand...

Miss Trust ( Uni Student)
I know some of you support the Government’s intervention and perhaps you wonder why indigenous people sound cynical…but alas, indigenous people have the benefit of hindsight.

From invasion to attempted genocide, from dispossession to segregation, and from the forcible removal of children to cultural genocide, it is fair to say that the Australian authorities haven’t always been terribly concerned about the welfare of indigenous people…after all, some remote communities still live in appalling third world conditions!

200 years later, the government says, ‘Wow, indigenous people are suffering…who would have thought…let’s send in the army to fix all their complex multi-tiered social ills which are the manifestation of centuries of inter-generational trauma’.

I personally believe that the Howard Government’s intervention has less to do with restoring law and order and more to do with regaining government control of indigenous lands. ......

Of further interest, Australia recently opposed a UN declaration concerning the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world (143 countries for/ 4 against). In particular, Australia was strongly opposed to Article 26 which proclaims the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories, and resources…surely this rings a few alarm bells!

Unfortunately, the Australian media is playing into the Government’s hands by ‘blaming the victim’; sensationalising reports with an over-emphasis on physical/sexual abuse and substance assisted self-destruction whilst bypassing the big picture issues such as history & government policies that have created the moral, spiritual, cultural void in the first place. Thus in effect, the media has snuffed out any chance of sympathy on the part of ‘crisis fatigued’ Australians. And when the rest of the Australian population is disinterested, the Government is free to act as it chooses! Even a democratic government can act without checks and balances when it exploits those two twin evils in society, i.e. ignorance and indifference!

Click to expand...

Mick Dodson: the truth under intervention spin
Last night I attended a large gathering at Canberra's Helen Maxwell Gallery to hear the views of Mick Dodson on the Government's intervention in the Northern Territory. ACT Greens Senate candidate Kerrie Tucker was host. Dodson wasn't too hard on Labor; Rudd had little choice but to tick Howard's box or play into hands just itching to wedge Labor on race. Still, Rudd's speech on the matter to Parliament gave him room to clean up the mess if he wins office.

Dodson said that just about every page of the 500 pages of legislation authorising the intervention breaks our obligations under international human rights treaties we've signed up to, particularly the Convention outlawing racial discrimination. Mal Brough (Longman) had admitted he hadn't read the Sacred Children report which supposedly triggered the intervention, and it was a fair bet he hadn't bothered to read 'his' legislation' either. Indeed, it was probably read only by "those brave souls in the Senate who voted against it," he said, including the Greens.

Dodson said he was concerned about the recklessness with which politicians are now prepared to break the scared principle that one does not by law discriminate against people on the basis of their race, and the media's casual acceptance of this trend.

"This is not an intervention, it's an invasion of people's rights and liberties. The only positive is that it is a recognition of government failure."

Because of media laziness, most Australians didn't know what 'the intervention" was really all about. They didn't know that:

* There is no mention of the word 'child' or 'children' in the legislation, which violates the UN Convention of the rights of the child.

* The intervention would not create one new women's refuge or safe house in the 73 NT communities subject to it, despite the fact that only 5% of the communities already had either.

* The intervention would not fund one new child protection worker, or any extra child protection services.

* Instead it would create 725 new jobs in the public service, 300 of which are in Centrelink administering the withholding of ALL Aboriginal people's welfare income, regardless of whether they were good parents or bad, on the sole basis of where they lived. There is no right of appeal, for anyone.

* The intervention would not fund any services for the victims of abuse, or for the perpetrators.

* Assets can be seized from Aboriginal bodies if even $1 worth of Commonwealth funding was in their mix - without any compensation.

* The intervention threw 8,000 Aboriginal people who worked through CDEP (The Community Development Employment Scheme) in exchange for only 1500-2000 replacement jobs.

"This is racist action not for the purpose of helping children, but to wedge political opponents. What troubles me most is the racial discrimination and the incapacity of the media to be outraged by this. Why are we ready to allow this to happen?"

"Australians think it's about protecting kids. The lazy media let that happen. And if you put your head up you get called a child abuser yourself. You get abused for saying, 'Hang on a minute, can we talk about this?'"

Click to expand...

skint said:

The question of compensation is not what whether the money will do any good, but moreover it is whether a person is legally entitled to it.
For example,if 20/20 gets on "the sauce" and flies his hang-glider through my window, destroying my recently acquired Sydney Nolan (I wish) in the process, I'm entitled to sue for compensation. What I do with that money would be my business. I would be perfectly entitled to blow the whole shebang at the track if so chose. Doesn't alter the right to sue in the first place.
Fly safe 20/20!

Click to expand...