ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: Eriny on February 07, 2008, 05:42:33 pm
-
Does anyone hold any strong opinions in regard to saying sorry to Indigenous Australians?
Personally, I'm all for it for the following reasons:
1- If worded correctly, it's not saying "all this is my/our fault", it's more emblematic of the fact that wrongs were comitted in the past and that we all endevour to ensure those kinds of wrongs never happen again to any human being.
2- It will help with the reconciliation process and it means a lot to many individuals.
3- It means that we can hold the government responsible for also trying to make practical, positive difference to Indigenous communities. They can't say "sorry" and then pretend that problems in these communities don't exist because that would be seen as mere lip-service. They'd have to back it up with action and hopefully bettering the communities BY ACTUALLY CONSULTING THE PEOPLE WITHIN THEM.
4- Compensation probably won't be a big issue. sorry=/=money, although personally I'm for giving people who clearly deserve it some form of compensation, Tasmania at the moment already has a compensation package.
-
While I wouldn't say I have a strong opinion on it, I definately think we should say sorry.
-
We should be ashamed that we descend from a recent generation that persecuted the aboriginals and stripped them of their basic human rights. It is not our fault, but in realising that grave crimes were committed and by accepting responsibility on behalf of Australia, we can progress forward in our relationship with the Aboriginals and hopefully rehabilitate their broken community back into mainstream society. Here's to the restoration of dignity to the Aboriginal people. Good on ya, Ruddy boy.
-
Ah the perils of government intervention
-
Nope, the perils of immorality.
-
I thought the general gist was:
-Saying that you are personally sorry about what happened is good because it shows you care etc yada yada
-The goverment saying sorry as a whole => accepting responsibility is bad because then they will be giving out money left right and centre because 1 person will win, then 100 others will try
-
Nope, the perils of immorality.
Immorality committed by government in the name of actually helping people
-
Apparently (Brendan may be able to confirm), Rudd saying 'sorry' cannot be used in court to sue the government because the 'sorry' will be said in parliament and any statements made in parliament are not punishable through court or questionable through courts.
-
Why would people want to sue Rudd for saying sorry
-
Why would people want to sue Rudd for saying sorry
why else? $$$$$$$
-
Not suing Rudd, but the Australian government for compensation. If Rudd says sorry then the Aussie government takes responsibility for what happened to the Aborigines. And to be perfectly honest, why the fuck should they have to sue? The Australian government should be doing everything to help rehabilitate the downtrodden rural Aboriginal communites back into mainstream society. Some of the horror stories that I've heard from these rural areas really makes me wonder if the government gives a damn. And they bloody well should.
-
Oh yeah, it's awful! A couple of years ago the grandaughter of Albert Namatjira was basically left to die after being raped. Apparently a bunch of people walked past and didn't do anything - she could have lived. Stories like that really do make me sick.
I don't know if all governments are immoral as such, although that probably is the default mode for them, they're only immoral when the voters let them be (or even, in the case of the stolen generation, encourage them to be). So if Australia gets together and really says to the government that life in these communities should change for the better, then it will change, they need the votes. I just hope that Australia actually cares.
-
But the aborigines already receive extra payment from the government.. if they sue then that's just greedy :P
and what would they most likely spend that money on?
-
But the aborigines already receive extra payment from the government.. if they sue then that's just greedy :P
and what would they most likely spend that money on?
That's a very shortsighted opinion.
-
But the aborigines already receive extra payment from the government.. if they sue then that's just greedy :P
and what would they most likely spend that money on?
That's a very shortsighted opinion.
Has got a point though. I dont know if you walk down the street and see them but they are always sitting outside the bottleshop when i walk past...or boozing it up on the beach. Not all are like that but a fair few
-
But the aborigines already receive extra payment from the government.. if they sue then that's just greedy :P
and what would they most likely spend that money on?
That's a very shortsighted opinion.
Has got a point though. I dont know if you walk down the street and see them but they are always sitting outside the bottleshop when i walk past...or boozing it up on the beach. Not all are like that but a fair few
Especially around the Collingwood/Fitzroy area and more specific the safeway on smith st. Those are the ones that damage the image of the well behaved and mannered aborigines. They harass people 99% of the time while high or drunk.
-
It's silly to generalise an entire race on the actions of a few.
-
It's also silly to assert that it's a choice they've made, and not something that's borne out of the culture in which they're brought up (thanks very much to the Australian government, past AND present... although the present is taking steps to rectify this)
-
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bfull-textb/2008/02/12/1202760291188.html
Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation's history.
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.
-
Excellent - about time!
-
its so uninspiring compared to the 'i have a dream speech'. we don't have an inspiring constitution or declaration of independence to quote
-
I don't need a politician to inspire me. I look to other avenues
-
Our politics class is going to watch the speech live on tv tomorrow morning. Although, our politics teacher is the yr12 coordinator and will most likely make the whole year level watch. I'm very excited.
-
I am so relieved that this is finally happening! It's definitely the first stage of a properly orchestrated reconciliation process. It gives the nation a chance to finally commence a journey whereby we can move on from the attrocities of the past. Given that John Howard, obsessed with his economic credibility, lacked the moral conscience to produce a declaration such as this, I think it's fantastic that Kevin Rudd has the integrity and compassion to make this brave move.
-
its so uninspiring compared to the 'i have a dream speech'. we don't have an inspiring constitution or declaration of independence to quote
Why does that even matter? Seriously, recognise it for what it is worth. Not how inspiring it is!
-
its so uninspiring compared to the 'i have a dream speech'. we don't have an inspiring constitution or declaration of independence to quote
I think people forget the Martin Luther King was an *extremely* talented speech writer and a brilliant orator. You just won't find people that talented in every department in the government. Martin Luther King was a once in a lifetime person and you just shouldn't expect a PM to make such a speech.
-
I don't think the Aborigines are expecting a speech which can be likened to that anyway.
-
I like it, it's what I think a "sorry" speech should be. It's no "I have a dream", but Kevin Rudd isn't exactly orchestrating an uprising, he's apologising - the occassion calls for a more subdued tone.
-
After watching the telecast this morning, I thought the PM expressed himself brilliantly. It's good that he has recognised not only the symbolism of the event but the necessity of implementing practical strategies.
I was disappointed with Nelson when he claimed, "there should be no guilt". Apparently this was met with disgust by many Aborigines in Canberra. It has been noted that many people turned away from the screen when he began his speech.
-
yeah that wasn't something they wanted to hear.
-
The whole entire school watched the telecast but it cut out before Nelson began talking :(
I would have laughed at whatever he would have said. And go the PM. A brilliant speech... I had a few tears in my eyes.
-
Brendan Nelson: "Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but not all cases, with the best of intentions... Even when motivated by inherent humanity and decency to reach out to the dispossessed in extreme adversity, our actions can have unintended outcomes."
It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and Ronald Reagan once said that the "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help".
But this is not a problem of a particular government in a particular time. It is inherent in every government because of the nature government itself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/the-law-of-unin.html
The effects government intervention done in the name helping a particular social group almost always, and ironically, end up harming the very people that they were trying to help in the first place. This is true of the government policies of yesterday and today. It is ironic that the government of today is apolizing for the well-intentioned but disasterous consequences of past government internvention whilst introducing laws to re-regulate the labour market that will almost certainly harm the very people it intends to benefit.
-
Brendan Nelson's speech: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bfull-textb-brendan-nelsons-speech/2008/02/13/1202760363287.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
I was disappointed with Nelson when he claimed, "there should be no guilt".
Brendan Nelson was right to say "Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done".
That does not mean we cannot empathize, have compassion and understanding. Nor does it mean that we cannot feel anger and disgust at the past actions of the Commonwealth and State governments.
-
The effects government intervention done in the name helping a particular social group almost always, and ironically, end up harming the very people that they were trying to help in the first place. This is true of the government policies of yesterday and today. It is ironic that the government of today is apolizing for the well-intentioned but disasterous consequences of past government internvention whilst introducing laws to re-regulate the labour market that will almost certainly harm the very people it intends to benefit.
Almost always? Have you looked at every instance of government intervention and documented whether or not the effect was positive or negative? Furthermore, doesn't almost any action have both positive and negative effects? I'll admit many instances of government intervention have gone wrong, particularly in non-democratic societies, but I disagree with the assertion that therefore, all intervention is bad. In a way, I think we're all responsible for making sure that government intervention is good, for we are all citizens in a democratic nation. We need to be aware that it is our collective influence that determines policy decisions and it's our duty to make sure that we use our influence so that those policy decisions are wise and ultimately beneficial, knowing what we know about governments getting it wrong. This happened today with the people demanding of the government that they say sorry and further intervention will be required in the future to erase the discrimination suffered by the Indigenous people of Australia. I suppose that is essentially using intervention to erase the effects of intervention, but I think even if you ignore the problems associated with the stolen generation, Aboriginal people have gotten a pretty raw deal as they were forgotten about by the conscious of the public.
And Regan was the guy who tightened America's "war on drugs". I think he was fine with government intervention, as long as it couldn't be construed as communism :D
-
I would have laughed at whatever he would have said.
That's just plain ignorance. Brendan Nelson isn't the typical right-wing conservative you think he is.
-
And Regan was the guy who tightened America's "war on drugs". I think he was fine with government intervention, as long as it couldn't be construed as communism :D
Here you attack the messenger instead of the message. You can still appreciate the quote. Kevin Rudd isn't for compensation, and he will not use government intervention to reimburse Aboriginals - but I don't see you disqualifying Kevin Rudd's speech.
-
Furthermore, doesn't almost any action have both positive and negative effects?
Yes, and that was my point that most government programs have done more harm than good.
-
And Regan was the guy who tightened America's "war on drugs". I think he was fine with government intervention, as long as it couldn't be construed as communism :D
Here you attack the messenger instead of the message. You can still appreciate the quote. Kevin Rudd isn't for compensation, and he will not use government intervention to reimburse Aboriginals - but I don't see you disqualifying Kevin Rudd's speech.
Lighten up, I was just joking around, as denoted by the ":D" (honestly, it's so difficult to joke on the internet, I should probably stop trying).
Anyway, I'm not disqualifying Kevin Rudd's speech because I don't have a problem with it... I don't really understand what you mean.
-
I meant that Kevin Rudd holds a position that you don't agree with (like how I don't agree with Reagan's tightening of the War on Drugs), but we can still appreciate facets of what they say.
-
oh, okay. Sorry for that.
On compensation, I don't actually know if K-Rudd is for or against compensation I haven't read anything either way apart from him maintaining that questions of compensation should be seperate from the actual apology. If he abides by the Bringing Them Home report, then there will be some form of compensation. The states may take care of that though, as I said before Tasmania has a fund already, and they were saying this morning that WA has one too (which actually covers more people than the stolen generation). I don't think compensation is the most important thing though. I mean, if people can prove they deserve it, I'm all for it, but I'd be really disappointed if that's the only thing that happened, I'd like to see way more empowering policies than that.
-
The most empowering policy, in my opinion, would be to stop this collectivist classification of Aboriginal people as part of this group, and to look at them as unique individuals like you and I. Special treatment of Aborigines is racist, whether it is positive or negative treatment.
-
I don't actually know if K-Rudd is for or against compensation
he isn't
-
I don't actually know if K-Rudd is for or against compensation
he isn't
good
-
(http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2008/02/13/lf_dodson2,0.jpg)
ROFL AGE FRONT ON WEBSITE
-
If they want compensation, the government will merely subtract all compensation being given from the money they will allocate to try and bridge the health, education and social gaps between aboriginals and other Australians. I know which outcome would be my desire.
-
my honest opinion, it was mainly bullcrap.
I thought that Kevin Rudd would've been smarter than to accept responsibily, even moreso apologize on behalf of the nation.
I totally agree with Brendan Nelson, I have no guilt, I was not here, and even though i feel sorry for these people, I will not apologize. The ultimate result will be compensation, but in reality, tax payers such as ourselves are required to support these proposed changes in the next decade or more. Its not entirely fair for my hard-earned tax to be given to someone else under the banner of regret and reconcilliation for something i did not do.
I was dismayed at people's reaction to Brendan Nelson's speech, but i got over it when step-dad and myself shouted "bloody oath" in the living room, and when i saw the results of the ninemsn poll, well ;) *relief*
I know that I wont be voting for Mr Rudd comes election, even though he can speak my language. (and i thought he was cool =/)
on a side note, what i thought was low and sly was the unannounced challenge to Brendan Nelson to head the new committee. Of course it's going to be a difficult job, of course there will be mistakes, of course someone will be blamed, of course that should be the opposition =\
...
-
I was dismayed at people's reaction to Brendan Nelson's speech, but i got over it when step-dad and myself shouted "bloody oath" in the living room, and when i saw the results of the ninemsn poll, well ;) *relief*
Me too! I find it ironic that those who preach tolerance, such as embracing Aborigines for example, had such a bigoted reaction to Brendan Nelson's speech.
He merely claimed (correctly) that the current generation has no personal guilt for the government interventions of the past. He did support the apology, and accepts that it brings much needed closure to the Aboriginal people, but he also knows that the current generation owes nothing more than an apology.
-
The ultimate result will be compensation,
i doubt the apology would make much of a difference in the legal outcomes
-
Agree with both Coblins and Brendans posts.
-
The Australian Parliament apology in the international press:
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/asia/13aborigine.html?ref=world
London Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3362062.ece
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021202351.html?hpid%253Dsec-world
International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/13/asia/13aborigine.php
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/australia.aborgines/?iref=hpmostpop
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-12-australia-aborigines_N.htm
Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-australia13feb13,1,5658259.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
-
The most empowering policy, in my opinion, would be to stop this collectivist classification of Aboriginal people as part of this group, and to look at them as unique individuals like you and I. Special treatment of Aborigines is racist, whether it is positive or negative treatment.
I agree that no race should be singled out, but if any group of people are living in near third-world conditions in Australia, special treatment is necessary. Not because they are Aboriginal, but because the conditions they're exposed to are awful. What would be empowering to me is the communities themselves playing a role in improving conditions, merely supported by the government and not told by the government "you have to do this or else you don't get any funding". From a sociological standpoint, if a particular group in society is suffering more than others, then it's wise to figure out why, even if it does reduce us to generalisations - it might actually help improve the world in general and give more people a chance of achieving great things.
I personally didn't mind Nelson's speech, but the problem was with the fact he was speaking more to broader Australia rather to those individuals present who have been hurt, who have been waiting their lives for this occasion, and who are very sensitive. I think he had a fair point, even though I think he could have been more subtle in his expression of it. In any case, I appreciated the sentiment of reconciliation being a bi-partisan motion.
-
I think I can agree with you if the system is one where the government provides aid loans to these communities, although I think the private market could achieve the same purpose. However, as long as the government is only acting as the role of the referee, rather than as the headmaster, I don't have many problems with any ideas that would help out these poorer communities.
-
today was heavily reliant on semantics. personally, i interpreted "sorry" as expressing "deep regret" for the actions of our forebearers and accepting both the prosperity and wrongs of the past simultaneously. i never got the impression that we conceded that the stolen generation was our personal responsibility or fault. hence, i was supportive of the apology.
-
today was heavily reliant on semantics. personally, i interpreted "sorry" as expressing "deep regret" for the actions of our forebearers and accepting both the prosperity and wrongs of the past simultaneously. i never got the impression that we conceded that the stolen generation was our personal responsibility or fault. hence, i was supportive of the apology.
Same here. Kevin Rudd has expressed that he is against compensation, so I have no problems with what has happened today.
-
I totally agree with Brendan Nelson, I have no guilt, I was not here, and even though i feel sorry for these people, I will not apologize.
mao - nelson got majorly pwned today because that's the impression that many members of public got. the "no guilt" part was highly reminiscent of howard (who said basically the same thing and "therefore, i will not say sorry"); therefore, he angered the public. i don't think he was careful enough with his words. however, he did say sorry, but you misinterpreted like many other australians. in effect, he reiterated the ideas in rudd's speech.
-
(http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5893204,00.jpg)
-
Oh, that's not fair. That's parental negligence versus government intervention!
-
LOL! None the less, it's funny! =P
-
But the aborigines already receive extra payment from the government.. if they sue then that's just greedy :P
and what would they most likely spend that money on?
That's a very shortsighted opinion.
Has got a point though. I dont know if you walk down the street and see them but they are always sitting outside the bottleshop when i walk past...or boozing it up on the beach. Not all are like that but a fair few
I used to work in a bottleshop. I think I saw more miserable old men than aboriginals.
Anecdote aside, it's wrong to simply generalise an entire race based on the actions of a few.
I think that the Aboriginies received a very well deserved, and belated, apology. I agree that a 'compensation fund' for everyone is out of the question, and that each case should be decided on its own merits. On the note of guilt, I do agree with Dr. Nelson on this count - the problems were not of our generation....but, as a society we can collectively feel empathy for the plight of the Aboriginies (and the failure of government intervention) - and as such feel "sorry" (for want of a better word?).
I just think the words that Dr. Nelson used to portray this point may have been a little too harsh for general public sentiment. I also might want to note that Mr. Rudd only apologised on behalf of past governments and their policies - not the entire nation.
I think Rudd's speech was a winner.
-
I just think the words that Dr. Nelson used to portray this point may have been a little too harsh for general public sentiment. I also might want to note that Mr. Rudd only apologised on behalf of past governments and their policies - not the entire nation.
Yet Dr. Nelson said the same: that the guilt does not belong to the entire nation, nor for the current generation of Australians. I think people were using Brendan as a scapegoat, and as a symbol of John Howard (who refused to say sorry). They need to realise that the Liberal party is changing its shape and form.
Abbot defends Nelson's speech according to this article, and also features a section on an Indigenous group asking for governments to stop intervention:
While a peak Indigenous group has praised the Commonwealth's apology to the Stolen Generations, they say the intervention in Aboriginal communities must be stopped.
The National Aboriginal Alliance (NAA) says the atrocities of the past will be repeated if the Federal Government continues its intervention in the Northern Territory's Aboriginal communities.
NAA spokesman Les Malezer says the intervention is unfair.
"We've made it quite clear that it's not a case of modifying or altering the intervention, it's a case where it must be stopped," he said.
"It is discriminatory and it must be immediately stopped."
-
To the extent that the intervention is simply enforcing the law, i have no problem with it.
-
But, what if the intervention became law by Act of Parliament? Would you support it then?
-
the existing criminal law that is
-
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23246127-2862,00.html
"Activists threatened to launch a series of legal claims for damages if compensation did not accompany the federal government's historic apology last week."
So it begins?
Looks like we may all end up paying for what we didn't do.
I don't understand why anyone would think saying sorry for this would make everything okay? By denying, and pretending like it never happened, previous governments have avoided this problem.
Sure, apologizing was probably the most ethical thing to do, but considering the hip pocket, I would have rathered that Kevin Rudd follow the trend of previous PMs and continue to turn the blind eye.
-
Jeff, the apology has no legal ramifications from what I understand from it because it was said in Parliament and anything said in Parliament can not be used in Court.
Indigenous Australians could commence litigation with or without the apology and it already has happened in the past few years. Therefore the "ethical" considerations outweigh the perceived "compensation" claim because regardless of the apology, litigation can and has been commencing.
-
Besides, anyone who was abused while they were a ward of the state is entitled to compensaion. It's simply a legal matter.
-
Jeff, the apology has no legal ramifications from what I understand from it because it was said in Parliament and anything said in Parliament can not be used in Court.
Indigenous Australians could commence litigation with or without the apology and it already has happened in the past few years. Therefore the "ethical" considerations outweigh the perceived "compensation" claim because regardless of the apology, litigation can and has been commencing.
Did you even read the article?
They didn't say that they were using the apology in court, they said that if they do NOT get compensation, more numbers will go to court to argue that their lives were ruined due to the act of government action. They were using it as a threat.
Besides, anyone who was abused while they were a ward of the state is entitled to compensaion. It's simply a legal matter.
The fact that they were taken from their parents and their heritage is abuse enough, whole lives was ruined, the majority never found their parents again, so if we get what, thousands of people going to court and taking million dollar claims, where does that leave us?
-
Yes, "if compensation did not accompany the federal government's historic apology last week".
My point is, regardless of the apology they could always launch a series of legal claims for damages .
Therefore, what is the cost of apologizing?
-
Yes, "if compensation did not accompany the federal government's historic apology last week".
My point is, regardless of the apology they could always launch a series of legal claims for damages .
Therefore, what is the cost of apologizing?
Rudd did promise more things for housing, healthcare and education, this is the cost of apologizing.
unless of course, it's another one of Rudd's empty wishes, like the Internet, like the laptop...
-
The fact that they were taken from their parents and their heritage is abuse enough, whole lives was ruined, the majority never found their parents again, so if we get what, thousands of people going to court and taking million dollar claims, where does that leave us?
Even those who strongly support compensation are being realistic about the amount that can be claimed (I saw one advocate on Sky News suggesting something around $50,000). It certainly wouldn't be anywhere near $1 million per person. I think compensation is justified given the trauma and suffering caused, even if it was inflicted by previous governments.
-
Yes, "if compensation did not accompany the federal government's historic apology last week".
My point is, regardless of the apology they could always launch a series of legal claims for damages .
Therefore, what is the cost of apologizing?
Rudd did promise more things for housing, healthcare and education, this is the cost of apologizing.
unless of course, it's another one of Rudd's empty wishes, like the Internet, like the laptop...
That's NOT a cost!!!
That is simply Rudd implementing policy which he devised (or simply stated) prior to the election. Is every policy that is implemented a cost? Financially speaking, you may say yes. But how about the benefits? An Australia where Aboriginals don't die 13 or so years before non-indigenous people. Better access to education. Better opportunities for aboriginals in society!
These things are not the by-product of the apology! This is his policy and in my opinion it's far overdue!
-
How about the hidden trauma and suffering that minimum wages cause to the long term unemployed?
How about the hidden trauma and suffering that protectionist tariffs and quotas cause to the low income consumer?
How about the hidden trauma and suffering that students go through when zoned to a poor public school?
Such government interventions are mistakes, they should correct their mistakes, be deeply regretful and apologetic and move on. Compensation is only going to hurt the middle class - putting pressure on the budget, and hence upwards pressure on taxation.
-
I see the point you are making Coblin. Government intervention has caused trauma for a large proportion of Australians. Why isn't everyone who has been the victim of government intervention and government policy entitled to damages?
-
How about the hidden trauma and suffering that minimum wages cause to the long term unemployed?
How about the hidden trauma and suffering that protectionist tariffs and quotas cause to the low income consumer?
How about the hidden trauma and suffering that students go through when zoned to a poor public school?
Such government interventions are mistakes, they should correct their mistakes, be deeply regretful and apologetic and move on. Compensation is only going to hurt the middle class - putting pressure on the budget, and hence upwards pressure on taxation.
We’ve had consecutive budget surpluses since 2001, with the most recent being $10.6 billion. Would a reasonable payout in compensation really apply upward pressure on taxation? I don't believe that is logical (perhaps if each claim was for an extortionate amount).
I'm not sure what relevance the rest of your post has, but I agree with you - minimum wages can erode cost-competitiveness and hence lower employment opportunities, protectionist tariffs and quotas can be barriers to greater efficiency, and zoning laws are not fair (I know, I nearly got kicked out of my first high school because of them).
-
Kevin Rudd speaks about apology one year on
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25048143-12377,00.html
As for me, I am still not sorry, I have no guilt.
-
It was an empathetic sorry from Australia as a whole to a damaged generation of Australians. Not assigning blame to each individual person, but rather, to the Australia as a whole that allowed this to happen.
I guess those without the ability to empathise would not realise the significance and importance of this event.
-
Kevin Rudd speaks about apology one year on
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25048143-12377,00.html
As for me, I am still not sorry, I have no guilt.
Do you at lest FEEL sorry for the victims?
-
Kevin Rudd speaks about apology one year on
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25048143-12377,00.html
As for me, I am still not sorry, I have no guilt.
I don't understand how you can hold that view. wait...what the fuck...why do I care what you think
-
Kevin Rudd speaks about apology one year on
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25048143-12377,00.html
As for me, I am still not sorry, I have no guilt.
I don't understand how you can hold that view. wait...what the fuck...why do I care what you think
I think he's trying to say that he has no personal guilt to apologise for.
-
I am sorry that that they went through the things that they did but I don't feel guilty in the slightest, not do I take on any personal apology.
I think that that is what Brendan is also trying to say.
-
I feel guilty in that I'm essentially a beneficiary of violence and oppression. I recognise that it isn't my fault, but I'm very sorry for what happened.
-
I think there's a difference between feeling sorry (empathy) and being sorry (guilt) that needs to be highlighted...a battle of semantics really.
-
It was an empathetic sorry from Australia as a whole to a damaged generation of Australians. Not assigning blame to each individual person, but rather, to the Australia as a whole that allowed this to happen.
I guess those without the ability to empathise would not realise the significance and importance of this event.
So I guess those of us who are German Australians should be taxed to compensate holocaust victims? I guess Aborigines should be taxed even more to compensate child sexual abuse victims seeing as they're a part of the aboriginal culture that is notorious for child sexual abuse? When will closure occur? 10 years? 50 years? never?
-
It was an empathetic sorry from Australia as a whole to a damaged generation of Australians. Not assigning blame to each individual person, but rather, to the Australia as a whole that allowed this to happen.
I guess those without the ability to empathise would not realise the significance and importance of this event.
So I guess those of us who are German Australians should be taxed to compensate holocaust victims? I guess Aborigines should be taxed even more to compensate child sexual abuse victims seeing as they're a part of the aboriginal culture that is notorious for child sexual abuse? When will closure occur? 10 years? 50 years? never?
That's a bit absurd, re: Australians who have German heritage. They clearly no longer identify as German nationals. They no longer wear Germany's badge, they are AUSTRALIAN citizens. German taxes do fund Holocaust survivor compensation, you might be interested to know, despite the fact that almost all of the people paying those taxes did not actually participate in the holocaust. Would you argue that this is wrong? That this is theft?
And in regard to your second point, this is a bit ill-considered. The tragic child sexual abuse that occurs in Aboriginal communities is one of the horrible results of Western culture's interference in the Aboriginal culture that destroyed it, leaving it in a messy ruin. Bringing them things like alcohol and guns but not teaching them how to drink responsibly and educating about gun safety. And so, what happens when you introduce radical changes from a foreign culture? You get a horrible mish-mash that can only end in disaster.
-
It was an empathetic sorry from Australia as a whole to a damaged generation of Australians. Not assigning blame to each individual person, but rather, to the Australia as a whole that allowed this to happen.
I guess those without the ability to empathise would not realise the significance and importance of this event.
So I guess those of us who are German Australians should be taxed to compensate holocaust victims? I guess Aborigines should be taxed even more to compensate child sexual abuse victims seeing as they're a part of the aboriginal culture that is notorious for child sexual abuse? When will closure occur? 10 years? 50 years? never?
You are confusing apology with punishment ...
-
I feel guilty in that I'm essentially a beneficiary of violence and oppression. I recognise that it isn't my fault, but I'm very sorry for what happened.
I think you nailed it. I think that's the whole POINT which those who support an apology are trying to get through. In this case it isn't so much about THEM and US, or THEY get benefits, and THEY have abuse in communities etc (not stating facts, just words/opinions of people). The sorry was what the Aboriginals asked for to move ON, to start new....personally it for me if I was Aboriginal, wouldn't have made a difference to my life, that is if i wanted to do well in life s.o.r.r.y. would make little difference. HOWEVER, for thousands out there it did, and we need to keep that in mind
Take it like this, Kevin Rudd has already said sorry, it's done. No point saying he should or shouldn't have. Besides, we have nothing to lose in him saying that, we're still living our lives etc as normal.
-
Kevin Rudd speaks about apology one year on
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25048143-12377,00.html
As for me, I am still not sorry, I have no guilt.
And that's perfectly okay. Of course! You weren't the cause of the abuse, you weren't alive at the time etc. But what the issue is is that people are saying "he shouldn't have said sorry, we have nothing to apologies for"
I know Rudd used somewhere like "we as Australian say sorry" or something that incorporates ALL of us, I can understand why some people may be annoyed at that since they don't support an apology, but thing is, its sort of evenly divided, and so the well mannered thing to say (remember its a politician), would be to incorporate us all. Why would the Gov want to further cause a rift between us and them?
-
It was an empathetic sorry from Australia as a whole to a damaged generation of Australians. Not assigning blame to each individual person, but rather, to the Australia as a whole that allowed this to happen.
I guess those without the ability to empathise would not realise the significance and importance of this event.
So I guess those of us who are German Australians should be taxed to compensate holocaust victims? I guess Aborigines should be taxed even more to compensate child sexual abuse victims seeing as they're a part of the aboriginal culture that is notorious for child sexual abuse? When will closure occur? 10 years? 50 years? never?
That's a bit absurd, re: Australians who have German heritage. They clearly no longer identify as German nationals. They no longer wear Germany's badge, they are AUSTRALIAN citizens. German taxes do fund Holocaust survivor compensation, you might be interested to know, despite the fact that almost all of the people paying those taxes did not actually participate in the holocaust. Would you argue that this is wrong? That this is theft?
And in regard to your second point, this is a bit ill-considered. The tragic child sexual abuse that occurs in Aboriginal communities is one of the horrible results of Western culture's interference in the Aboriginal culture that destroyed it, leaving it in a messy ruin. Bringing them things like alcohol and guns but not teaching them how to drink responsibly and educating about gun safety. And so, what happens when you introduce radical changes from a foreign culture? You get a horrible mish-mash that can only end in disaster.
Change 'taxed' in my first point to 'morally obligated to pay'. Also, holocaust survivors and aborigines are not analogous; it would be analogous if compensation was paid to ALL German Jews, in which case, I would deem that as unrighteous taxation or as you put it 'theft'. This is because the correlation that they are both German and Jewish does not prove the causation that they suffer because of these attributes. I'm not arguing against the distribution of wealth to the disadvantaged, or even that most aboriginals deserve welfare, but to prioritize them above other people based on criteria that is irrespective of their financial status; it is not only wasteful, but racist.
To say that the gross treatment of children that is prevalent in rural aboriginal communities in the present time is the product of the Westernisation of Austalia is what is 'ill-considered'. For that to be even close to true, child sexual abuse amongst aboriginals must have been negligible before colonization. I'm not interested in the aboriginal's situation c100 years ago, I'm interested in what it is now: equal rights, citizenship and a better quality of life. If you ask them whether or not they would like to have things back to the way they used to be 200 years ago, most Indigenous Australian's would sternly decline. This is because they now have it BETTER OFF, with a higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, better health, and wider grounds for which to build their happiness upon.
As far as the colony's responsibility to educate natives in alcohol and weapons responsibility goes, the very idea of such education even amongst whites in the age of colonisation is ridiculous. And if Admin was referring to present day, education does exist. Maybe their tendency towards alcohol dependency is due to the fact that they cannot metabolize alcohol as other races can. Maybe their tendency towards violence and child abuse is due to their lower average IQ (whether inherited genetically or acquired environmentally), after all, there is a correlation between intelligence and violence.
And for all you nay-sayers: I'm talking about culturally relevant IQ testing conducted empirically and without bias, some references to this are found in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Also, calls for the removal of alcohol from certain rural communities with aboriginal inhabitants was met with outrage by its inhabitants, as it is in fact an incursion on their freedom of choice. This is because alcohol is not illegal! This further rebukes any claim that alcohol is one of the direct causes of child sexual abuse because if proof existed that it was, it would be immediately deemed illegal!
-
Can't say I agree with you. You say you don't care about the situation 100 years ago, but it is exactly that situation from 100 years ago that led to what it is today. Of course they can't go back to what they had 200 years ago. They don't bloody well know how to go back to what they had 200 years ago. They're stuck in this excruciating limbo between the primitive hunter-gatherer culture which they left behind and the wildly accelerated modern world society to which they were expected to transition overnight. To argue that they have it "better off" is an extremely subjective debate. Do you honestly think that being stripped of their dignity and culture is 'better off'? We stole their way of life from under their feet. Now they cannot fend for themselves. They were once a proud race comprising 250 nations and thousands of clans. And now they're at the mercy of government welfare. You tell me that that is a "better way of life". We took their independence. The very least we can do is provide the monetary support required to help them get it back. To educate them to the point where they can fully adapt into our society. We have already passed the point of no return.
They didn't have a choice. So now you say "oh but now they have equal rights and citizenship"... So what? Their communities are so broken, that this tokenism of "come live in our society" is supposed to rectify the fact that we destroyed their culture and imposed ours upon them in such a way that for the majority of them, they live in a complete shambles? The irony of this is also that they don't really live in our society, do they? How many aboriginals do you know personally? I know very few. They are almost completely isolated from metropolitan society. They don't HAVE equal opportunity, and won't have it until we repair their broken communities.
Also, back then, the colony had far less of an impetus to educate its own citizens about gun use because by and large, most of them had adapted to their culture's values for hundreds of years and were brought up as such. That is why the idea of educating its own citizens was preposterous - they already knew the rules of the game. The aboriginals didn't. And every single generation of aboriginal from the time the early settlers came until now has been conflicted by that culture confusion.
I think your IQ claims are ludicrous and belie a complete ignorance of the fact that studies have shown that education during formative years greatly affects a person's IQ and EQ. Yes, EQ is very important as well. The current education programs available are clearly not working, and banning alcohol would be the wrong move (and would truly be discrimination). What we need is to pour a fuckload more money into the programs which will hopefully arrest the cycle as it begins - with the children - and teach them how to properly deal with their culture clash, so that they can still retain their proud heritage, whilst adapting to modern day society.
I've saved your first point till last, because it ties in here the best. Actually, holocaust survivors and aboriginals are extremely analogous. Both were the subjects of attempted genocide, and both are still recovering from the wounds of the atrocities committed against them. I think you'll find that it is incumbent upon us to support their welfare.
I'm not arguing that aborigines be individually compensated for their ancestors' suffering. I'm arguing that the aborigines today be compensated with education programs, medical care, and yes, money in the bank each week, so that they can achieve a standard of living comparable to that of the rest of Australia. Those that manage to become independent and make the transition back to independent, proud lives, should not receive compensation, I agree. But those that don't or are yet to do so are most certainly deserving of such compensation. And I gladly give my taxes in support of such endeavours, as do the majority of all Australians, who elected Kevin Rudd to power in 2007 on that platform of indigenous welfare and apology.
-
yeah i agree with admin on most things but not sure about the solutions...government solutions dont seem to work well lol they usually make things worse
-
Also, calls for the removal of alcohol from certain rural communities with aboriginal inhabitants was met with outrage by its inhabitants, as it is in fact an incursion on their freedom of choice. This is because alcohol is not illegal! This further rebukes any claim that alcohol is one of the direct causes of child sexual abuse because if proof existed that it was, it would be immediately deemed illegal!
The fact that something is legal does not mean it is harmless. There are so many cases of murder, rape, assault, manslaughter etc. which would not have happened if not for the fact that the offender was under the influence of alcohol.
What about smoking? It's a direct cause of lung cancer. It's not illegal.
-
Harmful to yourself versus harmful to others
-
Harmful to yourself versus harmful to others
There are so many cases of murder, rape, assault, manslaughter etc. which would not have happened if not for the fact that the offender was under the influence of alcohol.
-
Was responding to:
What about smoking? It's a direct cause of lung cancer. It's not illegal.
-
Was responding to:
What about smoking? It's a direct cause of lung cancer. It's not illegal.
Unnecessary burden on the health system.