Aboriginal sexual abuse
Jon Owen asks some powerful if not disturbing questions about the Aboriginal sexual abuse issue and John Howard’s new found interest in the issue.
“1) Why doesn’t Mr Howard work with the local Aboriginal leadership and get them involved in the planning of strategies to fight the problem? Why doesn’t he consult the Aboriginal elders and leaders to get them into owning the actions that must be taken? Why won’t he hear their ideas and negotiate and plan with them? When Aboriginal leaders decide on a “no alcohol” ban for their communities, it usually works a whole lot better than when the white leaders of the country decide to ban things on their behalf.
2) Why does Mr Howard, after 10 years of inactivity towards the Australian Aboriginal people, suddenly position himself as someone who cares about them? He is going to put nuclear waste material in remote Aboriginal lands in the Northern Territory, if he wins the next election. How is this caring for the Aboriginals well being, their health, their future? Is Mr Howard schizophrenic? How can he say he cares in one breath, but will damage Aboriginal communities in the very next one?
3) Why is Howard acting so massively and decisively now, just a few months before a federal election? Could he be using the Aboriginals for personal political mileage? He will look like a caring and decisive leader. Some might then conclude that we had better keep him in power at the up and coming election. But if this is so, then he is actually adding to the abuse of the Aboriginal communities, but in a different way. He is abusing the Aborigines of the Northern Territory for his own political agenda. He is using our care and sympathy, for his own political capital. The Australian Aboriginals are once more the tool of the powerful to be used for their own outcomes.
4) When Mr Howard says “what matters more, the constitutional niceties or the care and protection of young children?” does he not realise the seriousness of what he is saying? This must come back to bite him. Does he really believe that the constitution of our nation and our states and territories, does not matter if we are fighting a good cause? He would never say that in most other situations. It is not what a believer in democracy says. It is the kind of logic that says it is ok to start wars for a good cause; it is ok to leave Australian citizens in overseas jails that torture their prisoners, for a good cause. It is ok to put refugee children in jails in offshore detention centres, for a good cause. It is the ends justifying the means. And it has never been a good idea.”
Read more here
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 pm
The fish shop was closed and I ended up getting a sausage roll and a Twirl chocolate bar from the convenience store.
Do I still get credit for ‘at least doing something’?
July 4th, 2007 at 7:57 am
While lance is busy buying his sausage roll and others whining about the govt this is happening:
Baby bashed to death in NT Aboriginal community
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/baby-bashed-to-death-in-nt/2007/07/03/1183351209029.html
Howard may not do everything right but at least he is not hot air like a few people on here. Actions speak louder than whining
July 4th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Abdullah, a month or so ago a baby was left out in the open by a white mother in Victoria, a number of young people were raped, a great number of young people are addicted to chuffing paint and countless thousands of unborn babies were killed, right here in white victoria. Should we send out the army and take away the VB?
rev
July 4th, 2007 at 9:17 am
rev , white australia has social services who are able to work reasonably quickly. This is not the case in the outback so there needs to be a dramatic
reaction to make changes. I agree with you that in the long term specific key
plans and services need to be implemented.
Sometimes shock and awe can shake people up to act and good may come out from this as long as long term issues are dealt with.
I would like VB to be taken away from all people as i hate beer. Alcohol is the scourge of modern society.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:34 am
mn…I’d basically express my view of rights as Daisy has, which I actually think is pretty close to what you’re saying.
Re: a letter…I’ve been thinking about this…maybe our time, energy etc is better putting our weight behind organisations that are already taking recommendations to Howard, and already have a “voice” in these matters, ie ANTAR etc.
Abdullah, there have actually been articles written and speeches given expressing the view that the presence of the army etc might contribute to violence, including sexual violence. If you support this approach, that’s fine - but tell us WHY you support it…and please give us reasons other than “well, something has to be done”. That’s not a justification for THIS policy, that’s a justification for absolutely anything under the sun. Please also quit accusing those of us who disagree with this policy of “whining” - chances are that some of us not only have entirely legitimate concerns about the policy, but have actually been “doing something” for quite some time. I’m not “whining” about this policy when I say that alcohol bans are not only paternalistic (when they’re driven from the outside, as opposed to being agreed to by the majority of the community), but likely to be fairly ineffective…the government had no luck banning kava, so why would it be able to ban grog?
For anyone who’s interested…Jennifer Clarke on whether a “national emergency” requires a “national response”…
http://law.anu.edu.au/news/Jennifer_Clarke.pdf
July 4th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Hi Bec
I think I’ll still write to my local pollie who is a Lib anyway.
I don’t think the presence of the army will cause any more violence that there already may or may not be - don’t see much difference to being East Timor actually. A lot of the people going will have been in difficult spots before and know how to work through things.
There presence is more likely to drive things underground for a bit, and it also depends a bit on the sales job that gets done in each community. So what happens when those likely to act violently with their own either:
get used to the army presence; or
the army presence ups and leaves with police in place together with support people for addictions, education, how do people make a living etc etc.
I think these are the concerns we should be pushing - the long term stuff.
Anyway I still think Lance is a model citizen - the fish shop proprietor thanks you for making the effort even though he missed you.
Cheers
MN
July 4th, 2007 at 11:16 am
hey you might question his motives or his methods, but AT LEAST HES DOING SOMETHING while the rest of us are just talking.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Warren,
the “at least he’s doing something” point has been done to death already, and I’m not sure how you know whether or not the rest of us a “just talking” or whether we’re “doing something”.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:59 am
hey all,
I just discovered a wealth of info on ANTaR’s site:
http://www.antar.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=0&Itemid=127
Jeff McMullen’s piece is well worth a read.
July 4th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
bec, I was referring to Lance not the PM. I really did LOL when I read Lance’s posts. I was going to write “Its a long way to the shop if you wanna sausage roll”, but thats probably also been done to death.
July 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
oh… :blush: sorry for jumping down your throat. I’ve just seen that written so many times on blogs and forums in the last week.
I was going to tell Lance that his fish is probably blacklisted by ACF and that everybody knows we should be cutting down on meat.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
[…] Aboriginal Sexual Abuse, at […]
July 18th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Not my comments unfortunately. (I haven’t been online in a long time to correct this). The comments were not posted by me , but by Jim Reiher. Though, I would stand by them.