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
June 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Howard needed something like a “children-overboard”, 9/11 or Katrina event to show that he is the great beneficent leader at this time. So he’s made one up again, he’s even compared it to Katrina. Again it involves the emotive issue of children, and again the Opposition leader is right behind him. It seems to be working again.
But now its not just foreigners and refugees who are having their rights taken away, its citizens. Did we have to send in the army so soon, after 10 years of inaction? Will anyone stand up to this, or do we all stand by and wait for the next group to be demonised.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
its more than 10 years of inaction and its on both sides of the political divide that shares the blame.
political opportunism - ?? i for one am just glad that something is finally happening. opportunistic or not.
lets have some more discussion with leaders to get them to take ownership of the issue???
the leaders of the aboriginal community are a disgrace - lets not have any talk while this is going on .. imagine if it was your children or family that was in there being abused, would you say ‘well lets have some more consultation’? no way .. i would be screaming for the police…
you abuse children or support a culture that allows it .. you forfiet your rights. what about the rights of the kids to not be assaulted??
June 29th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
I read the rest of Jon Owen’s comments and can’t say I think much of them for precisely the reasons outlined in his intro.
The issue about Howard is a typical Aussie furphy for those who have a desperate need to throw rocks at someone. Those rocks may even be justified.
What is of overwhelming import to the extent that it overshadows the above like Mt Everest compared to Mt Koz is the pandemic nature of child abuse in Aboriginal society.
Now lest someone feels like having a crack at me, yes I know there are many Aboriginals who take very good care of their family and a having a good go at life etc.
But as commented in another thread by me I’ve seen a fair bit of the state that many of our indigenous brethren are in, and my wife has seen a fair bit through Emergency departments and the mental health system.
On top of that you have a number of reports over the years including the most recent one showing the undeniable and shocking state that many of these people live in, and have under the current way of doing things little or no chance or getting out of or changing.
Instead of righteously throwing rocks at Howard for being such a political opportunist (again rightly or wrongly I don’t care) use that to paint Howard and Rudd into a corner that they cannot get out of to make sure that this issue is addressed in the short term AND the long term.
There may be an argument about how Howard is going about things, but regardless of his motives, anyone that tries to make an argument that he shouldn’t be doing anything - which is this inevitably always ends up in practical terms - should be taken out to live in those conditions for a month or two.
Better do the right thing for the wrong reasons than nothing at all.
‘
And to paraphrase Paul - I hope all those people who safely throw rocks form the sidelines emasculate themselves.
Cheers
MN
Cheers
MN
June 29th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
well said mn
its more than 10 years of inaction and its on both sides of the political divide that shares the blame.
political opportunism - ?? i for one am just glad that something is finally happening. opportunistic or not.
lets have some more discussion with leaders to get them to take ownership of the issue???
the leaders of the aboriginal community are a disgrace - lets not have any talk while this is going on .. imagine if it was your children or family that was in there being abused, would you say ‘well lets have some more consultation’? no way .. i would be screaming for the police…
you abuse children or support a culture that allows it .. you forfiet your rights. what about the rights of the kids to not be assaulted??
June 29th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
ya put a comment in it doesnt appear
ya put it again and both appear
June 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
I don’t give a damn who came up with this policy, it’s the contents that worry me. Short-sighted, ignorant paternalism at its worst. Even Noel Pearson has expressed concerns, as have the writers of the report that this policy was allegedly based on (never mind the fact that the government’s only interested in 3 out of the 97 of its recommendations!!)
MN, abtruth, for me it comes down to this: the government’s proposals go against decades of learning and collective wisdom not only in community development, but in emergency management…and this is, after all, how Howard wants to frame it.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Bec
I don’t necessarily disagree with you.
But this much for certain - those who are the perpetrators of child and other abuse (and I bear in mind that often these people are as much victims in their own way) are going to scream loudest about somebody going in. So I don’t place much store in that at all. Bob Bropho did exactly the same thing over here in the west, got convicted, went all the way to the High Court and got told there was no miscarriage of justice - and of course it’s just us white fellas out to get him.
As to how it actually works out - I think we will have to wait and see because I think there will be quite a bit of difference between the rhetoric and what happens on the ground for precisely the sorts of reasons behind your own comments.
Of much greater importance than these comments is what happens in the long term either way. I am hearing that word “fix” in lots of the media commentary which always sends shudders up my spine because that means spend money to soothe conscience, hope we don’t hear anything more and therefore problem has gone away, there there all better now.
If we wanna have a go at Howard et al, do so in the name of making sure that the people and resources are put in for the long hall with consultation. But one thing I will say too is that consultation while always desirable is often the best delaying tactic out.
Again I don’t see this as one of those situations where it is tenable to sit on the outside but rather join the train and influence direction from there.
As you state at the end it becomes how you frame it. Therefore let’s frame it for Howard and Rudd, let’s get the tail to wag the dog, rather than separate the tail from the dog, whereupon the tail serves no useful purpose at all.
let’s all become 5th columnists.
I tell ya what - you’re a lawyer - why don’t you draft a fairly generic letter that we can all send to our local members that we support intervention with local consultation reiterating we support Howard’s original comments that whatever resources are required will be made available. I’ll send one to mine. If it was kept general and on point - u know like we support the implementation of the recommendations etc.
What do you think?
Cheers
MN
June 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
For those interested here is the link to the report that started this latest round….
http://www.nt.gov.au/dcm/inquirysaac/
Cheers
MN
June 29th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
MN,
I completely agree that this shouldn’t become side-tracked by party politics and personal political allegiances. Unfortunately anyone who expresses concerns re: this policy is getting the response: “Well of course you think that. You don’t like Howard.” Which drives me nuts - for me, this has nothing to do with Howard or the Libs - Rudd and the ALP are, after all, supporting it (although I saw Rudd on TV last night saying he wants more detail to the policy, and I thought…where’s yours?!)
I’ll have a go at a letter when I have a chance…I’ve been meaning to anyway!!
Here’s just some of my problems with the policy (well, what I understand of it…they still haven’t released anything in writing, have they?)
(a) top down, heavy-handed approaches are bad community development - they don’t facilitate community-building, they don’t facilitate empowerment, they don’t facilitate self-determination
(b) this policy is discriminatory and racist by targeting specific sectors of the community based on race
(c) the policy is silly and nonsensical in some respects: ie examining kids for signs of sexual abuse only medicalises the issue, it won’t enable us to identify the perpetrators or the problem. Also what on earth do the land permits have to do with all of this? Nothing - the government’s just used fear and moral panic to further another one of their agendas.
(d) it attacks the symptoms and the “bandaids” used by indigenous people to cope. Yes, alcohol and porn pose problems in terms of creating healthy individuals and communities, but this policy doesn’t address the real, underlying problems, which have to do with self-respect, access to activities such as education and employment (hell, sexual violence, alcohol and porn are massive problems in mining communities too! I’d challenge the government to ban them there!)
(e) if the government is serious about reducing porn and alcohol then it would do this more effectively by engaging in community consultation - this would not only lead to more effective (self)policing but would also contribute to community building and empowerment
In case anyone’s looking for something to read and hasn’t already been flooded with ranting emails (!!), here’s some of the more interesting writing I’ve come across:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/another-tricky-howard-ruse/2007/06/22/1182019361459.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/much-goodwill-gaping-holes-need-filling/2007/06/22/1182019373132.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21952766-5013172,00.html
A piece by Tom Calma (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner) went to the HREOC mailing list…I’ll see whether I can find a link. There’s also a long piece by Jennifer Martiniello doing the rounds of the web. This has been shooting around via email but I found a copy on a blog: http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/aboriginal-communities-overboard.html
“The usual suspects”:
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1545#more-1545
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/06/21/tampa-2007-edition/
And finally - this from today’s Age, which I found both interesting and gut-wrenching: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-voice-from-the-heartland/2007/06/28/1182624080079.html
June 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Bec
I read two or three including the last one. Pretty sad stuff.
It’s hard to know what to say, but again at least someone is doing something.
Now often doing something is not always helpful because if it is wrong it does no good anyway and may send things backwards. But at least it means there is some momentum as opposed to inertia in which it might be a bit easier to nudge and change the direction for the better.
Look forward to what you might write if you have the time.
Night night
MN
June 30th, 2007 at 11:49 am
i read most of them as well and what disgusts me is the political expediency of both sides.
for political opportunistic reasons Howard wants to do something that should have been done years ago… go for it but just don’t stop if you win the next election.
those decrying Howards intentions reek of hypocrisy and methinks they would rather see nothing done than Howard win the next election… as if that would really be a tragedy
who cares its not about community development, its about children who are in immediate danger of being sexually assaulted
every child from rich or poor in society is in a totally dependent and vulnerable state.. i am sorry but it really took me having a few of my own to truly realise this.
if you are assaulting your child in the city and your white and the police find out about it they get a warrant then break into your house if need be and take you child away to foster parents. if the police suspect you are assaulting your child now then they don’t need a warrant they can just break down your door grab the child and go..
if it happens in an aboriginal community then we need more consultation and community empowerment with all stakeholders allowed to share their concerns
rubbish.. if this was happening in a white community (and it does) then the police are there in numbers… the aboriginal community has been under policed and allowed to get away with it and now its time to bring them back to standards expected by the wider Aust society
its not about reducing porn or alcohol its about children who are in immediate danger of being sexually assaulted again community consultation ?? we have had 40 years of it and where does it get us?
paternalism ?? when a community shows no respect for law, basic morality, other members of the community and where you are in power because you are male and strong and can enforce you will and sexual desires on others then you need a parent to come in and start spanking and sending kids to their rooms not asking what they would like to be done.
shame on the elders of the aboriginal community for not standing up for their community and not leading the people to a society that can stand on its own two feet
it really seems that the aboriginal leaders define leader as someone who gets more money rather than someone who inspires their community towards a higher goal
June 30th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
wow.. little bit heavy handed on the bold there…
this is where Rudd should be concentrating on and is one of the better criticisms of Howard that maintains the focus on the protection of the children
http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/stinging-rebuke-for-kevin-rudd-from-pat.html
and this from the same blog is an example of the worst political expediency regarding the whole affair
http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/jophn-howard-solves-the-indiegnousd.html
June 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
abtruth, I agree re: political expediency.
That said, this IS a community development issue. For a start, sexual violence is common in post-conflict societies, and communities where there’s a lot of anger, disempowerment, marginalisation etc…ie I understand that “baby rape” (including fathers raping their baby daughters) is one of the silent horrors in post-conflict societies. Further, the report pointed out that the perpertrators of sexual violence are not only indigenous men, but are often white men…why do you think these men are working in these communities, and why do you think they get away with what they do? You say “shame on the elders”, yet it’s often elders that are the perpetrator (and yes, shame on them for manipulating their “traditional” role…one of my friends often uses the phrase “bullsh*t law” to describe this). When they’re not standing up to the perpertrators, my question is WHY? For God’s sake, people CARE about sexual violence…there’s usually a reason why people won’t “stand up” to perpertrators!! You think more paternalism is going to help this situation?!
I could go on about the links between widespread sexual violence and “community development” or “emergency management”, but that’s just a start…
Don’t have time to address the rest of your post, but suffice to say that I’ve seen those arguments numerous times in the last week on blogs, and I’d only respond by re-stating what I’ve already stated. Plus I’d add that I’m definitely not speaking on my own here - a huge range of community groups have said the same thing.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
If it were happening in the white community the police would get a warrant and place the child in foster care…
Actually… this happens less than it should because it’s not easy to prove who’s responsible and community service workers are overloaded… but it’s not happening in the white community… I actually do think isolated indigenous communities require a different approach to white communities.
It’s quite possible that aboriginal women in these communities are more frightened of losing their children than they are of the violent men in their community. If that is the case… will they cooperate with the process? Especially if they do not really understand it or trust the people involved? Probably not.
Has government prohibition of alcohol ever worked well anywhere? It seems so likely to accelerate a drift to cities, or a roaring trade for grog smugglers into these communities. Where the group itself decides to be dry, that’s a different story.
I heard a wonderful aboriginal woman speaking about her approach to community development, and it was a lightbulb moment for me. The approaches that have worked best in underdeveloped aboriginal communities are similar to those used in development work overseas. You don’t ride in with Western style houses or doctors. You sit in the dirt with the people (for days) while they talk and talk about what is troubling them. You talk until there’s consesus about the real issues. You talk until you really understand what they want and what they believe will make a difference. You start with what they are worried about, not with what someone external thinks they should be worried about… and discuss what might help, and what is acceptable to the community, and who will take responsibility for what… etc. etc. It takes a lot of time…. but it actually does empower people.
Of course children need protection… but it actually needs to work, and it needs to make a difference long-term, and it needs to take into account many “primitive indigenous” societies adopt a consesus approach to community decisions. It would be great if resources for community development were equal to (or greater than) the resources spent on police, doctors, nurses etc. jetted in to these communities… because the change is then more likely to be owned and long-term. So far… “top down” hasn’t worked well.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Janet, you said:
“The approaches that have worked best in underdeveloped aboriginal communities are similar to those used in development work overseas. You don’t ride in with Western style houses or doctors.”
This is my point exactly.
And “If it were happening in the white community the police would get a warrant and place the child in foster care…”
Exactly. The government wouldn’t dare do this in the Solomons either - and while I acknowledge that there are issues of the sovereignty of nation-states there that aren’t here (at least in the sense of being recognised by the legal system), I suspect that the different approach has a lot more to do with politics…indigenous people here don’t have the same numbers and therefore have a ‘quieter’ voice.
Do you think the NZ government would ever get away with this approach in Maori communities?!
June 30th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Yes, I agree with you Bec.
I think what I wrote sounds a bit fuzzy at the start… I was reflecting on abtruth’s comment that if this was in the white community we’d steip in….
I don’t mean child abuse doesn’t happen in the white community… I mean that tribal communities function differently to white “communities” (where the neighbours often don’t even know each other’s names)… and the way we have usually approached development in remote aboriginal communities (top down) has a poor track record. We’re overdue to pour significant resource into long term community development. The expertise to do this exists if we have the will to do it… but it’s not headline grabbing stuff… it’s incremental and much slower than a “fly in the crisis team” approach.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Again I don’t see a problem with a “fly in the crisis team” approach provided that is not all there is to it.
The point that has been sort of skirted around is that in many communities the problem is throughout the whole community including some of the white fellas.
The approach being taken now is in a sense a circuit breaker. People can whinge all they want but I think it remains justifiable, and always remains better than nothing at all. In fact it is a brilliant springboard if people play it right.
The issue is how do you put a stop to some of the in your face issues now, and how you change what is happening from the inside out for the future, without getting sucked into dead end human rights issues (I don’t believe in them).
The challenge is how to influence and ensure their is a transition from top down to internal ownership of the core issues, then allowing a progression to healthy productive communities now that Howard has taken this action which is not going to change.
A question: for those who might know more what does a healthy productive Aboriginal community look like?
Cheers
MN
June 30th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
I don’t see a problem with a “fly in the crisis team” approach provided that is not all there is to it.
True… unless it significantly erodes trust by managing the situation badly.
what does a healthy productive Aboriginal community look like?
Within the bounds of the law of Australia (unless negotiated otherwise) and universal moral principles… isn’t that up to each community to decide?
However… it’s not a simple question… because most indigenous societies have to wrestle with change… so it won’t be a static thing.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Oh… and if it “shifts the problem” from indigenous communities to the fringes of rural towns where alcohol can be more easily accessed… it could breed another long term problem… more dispossessed mixed tribes who don’t fit anywhere.
Let’s hope not…
I’d be interested in your clarifying “dead end human rights issues”. I’m assuming you’re not meaning rights to safety, access to medical care, access to clean water, access to housing, self determination within legal boundaries… um… what do you mean exactly?
June 30th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
A massive multi layered challenge.
Yes. all children have a basic human right to be protected from harm, they also have a right to have a voice in decisions made about them, I wonder if the children and young people in the targeted communities have been consulted about the decisions being made about them?????
As years of child protection practice has shown us, our child protection systems are overloaded, understaffed at the front lines and overstaffed at management and policy levels.
We have a national legacy of a ’stolen generation’ to acknowledge, aboriginal people are understandably wary of government interventions re: child protection (remember our history? with good reason) because of this legacy.
Women indigenous and non-indigenous are blamed for children being at risk because of domestic violence, and child protection services often threaten to remove children if women will not leave violent relationships. What about the judical system making it more common and easier for women to obtain ouster orders? Would that not force men who are perpetrating violence to weather the consquences of violent behaviour more seriously?
If community based interventions are not developed in consultative ways, I wonder if long term effective strategies that actually improve the lives of entire communities can really be sustained long term? Communities of individual children, families and kinship groups?
Good grief, the government cannot legislate community change, it has not worked in the past, nor does it work with white families. If it is broke, then for goodness sake fix it, and do not use flawed models under the guise of reinventing the wheel.
It is a massive task that will take a tremendous amount of energy over decades, firstly and most importantly energy from aboriginal people committed to change, energy from governments state and federal to resource effectively, energy from indigenous professionals and culturally sensitive non-indigenous professionals, medical, educational, welfare, social work, child protection and counselling sectors.
The government has known about the issues for years, yes something needs to be done but it needs to be a response not a reaction.
Yes children need protection, but knee jerk reactions may only compound problems…..
If we well meaning white fellas stuff it up, history shows us, we probably will not say ’sorry’.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
Indeed Daisy…
I just read this: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/using-abused-children-to-get-elected/2007/06/29/1182624164756.html
It pretty much summarises your concerns.
A ray of light in all of this… it may highlight issues so clearly that it will become politically untenable NOT to give adequate resource the longer term community development initiatives.
I find it a little sad that addressing a problem that should be a moral imperative in a rich democracy such as ours has something of an aroma of “election mode” about it. I hate being cynical…
June 30th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Rarely do people ever do anything for just one reason. I’m sure Howard is not deaf dumb and blind to any potential election spinoffs from his actions.
But I think what he is doing is simply because he believes something needs to be done and as the PM he has the power to do “something”. He can, so he is - this is something most of can’t do - which is a good thing.
I understand your concerns about elections stunts but as much as you think Howard might be orchestrating another election stunt, I think that is naive (I am not and never have been a Howard supporter)).
The approach of those people on the ground will be quite simply very different to the language of the PM, which as always leaves the issue of what happens later. I happen to have a bit of faith that the people going there who include experienced doctors volunteering their services will do good work. They can do this because there is an opportunity that didn’t exist before, even if we disagree with the means
Part of dealing with the crap in this world is that even if you disagree with a lot of things we can still use whatever comes down the pike as an opportunity.
I think unless we intend to volunteer our services we don’t actually have much to offer perhaps except to lean on the pollies, and constructively raise the profile of particular issues.
As for human rights - that is nothing more than a humanist secularist construct - so much nonsense.
It is not about any rights we have, and never will be, but rather what obligations we have and to who, and what purposes we were created for - which is by and large anathema to our world. It also totally changes the nature of the debate.
Cheers
MN
July 1st, 2007 at 5:05 am
I always read the SMH and the Tele everyday online and was amazed to read about the Howard Aboriginal initiative. It interests me because I have travelled extensively in Australia starting in the early 70’s and right up until 1984. I was shocked to see that these drastic measures need to be employed but even more shocked realising that nothing has changed.
I’ve witnessed indigenous people picked up by the scruff of the neck and literally thrown into cages on the back of utes to get them out of parks in Perth, I’ve seen them parked on the ‘city limits’ of Mt Newman cadging someone to go into town and get some beer ‘cos they weren’t allowed in.
My wife has laid under the stars in the Kimberly and heard God songs on the air from Aboriginal outdoor church meetings, she has photos of her ‘Sisters in Christ’ who look about as far away from sydney blond skinny ‘women of God’ as you can get but so much more real.
Ive stepped over them on the pavements of Darwin early in the morning where they’ve ended up sleeping for the night, I’ve seen the white blokes slopeing off into the bush outside the beerswill bars outside Darwin with the Indigenous women touting for business. I’ve heard the calls from them in the middle of the night outside my single man’s hut on Groote Eylandt enticing us out for some ‘fun’. I’ve heard the racism directed at the Indigenous community in Brisbane when they ripped up the floorboards to make fires in their ‘white’ style homes. I’ve seen the segregated bars in Murgon Qld where if you’re white, you don’t go in and if you’re black, you sure as hell don’t go over the road to the other pub.
Ive driven past Redfern millions of times afraid to go in, I had black friends who were so deep and loving I couldn’t handle it with my white titearse emotions. I’ve walked through…well it just goes on.
You know what our problem is? we don’t love them. We don’t see them as human beings, we see them as a problem. There’s no love.
If you want to help someone you’ve got to get with them. It’s the same in white society, if you want to help someone you’ve got to get with them, get to know them, get dirty if that’s what is needed, but you have to start somewhere. Jon Owen asks valid questions but it’s often a problem of our society that we always see the reasons why not to do something.
Aboriginals have been pushed out of towns all over Australia, I’ve seen it with my own eyes, it’s no wonder there are problems, but it’s because of no love no respect.
July 1st, 2007 at 5:16 am
I’m sorry, I’m really no one to talk about thread this but once you’ve been in the bush a bit it stays with you and your heart breaks a little more when you think of Aboriginal people and the pain , i feel tears welling right now and i live a bloody long way away from there. maybe it’s just middle class bullshit white sentimentality, or guilt, but still, I am as guilty as anyone of denial. A whole race of people on MY doorstep outcasted and mis understood.
July 1st, 2007 at 7:47 am
Hey mn… I think John Howard actually is concerned about the plight of aboriginal children and in that sense I don’t think it’s a “stunt”…. I just feel a little cynical (and I don’t like that in myself) because the issue isn’t new. What changed last week? But as you say…. whatever the trigger, I don’t doubt there will be good people involved who will do some good.
But analagous to the Iraq scenario… it’s all very well to respond to a real or manufactured “crisis”; it’s quite another to know what is going to work long term for the benefit of the people you’re hoping to “save”. I think in Iraq there’s probably the sentiment around… well, we didn’t like Saddam Hussein, but we don’t want this kind of “saving”.
I think “human rights” are a legally codified way of describing what “love your neighbour as you love yourself” might look like… ie access to food, water, housing, the vote, education, privacy within reasonable limits, freedom of speech, fair working conditions, the rule of law (ie you can’t be thrown in jail or tortured because you say “I don’t like this government”).
Now as Christians we may (as Christ did) give up some “rights”… eg I know some people working in Communist countries where there is no real freedom of religion and freedom of association is very limited… they live within these boundaries to some extent for the protection of the Christians with whom they work.
I’m not sure what kind of human rights you see as a problem… you surely wouldn’t campaign for abolition of freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, or freedom from torture?
There is an attitude of entitlement you see in some people who use the word “rights”… really they mean they want everything their own way without their exerting themselves… but I think that’s a different attitude… I think the legal protections we enjoy in this country are an unambiguously good thing.
July 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Janet
it is the entitlement that I see as a huge problem which is often projected onto others which then causes huge problems down the track - ‘cos people see it and just baulk at it. It just maginifies the lack of love that IfIknewthen speaks of.
IfIknewthen
you speak the truth - owning that and repentance as individuals and as a nation should really be our starting point. At that point perhaps our role is as consciousness raisers and as conscience’s as well.
Cheers
MN
July 1st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
If individuals are not christians then how do their ‘rights’ get respected?
Entitlement?? Do you not remember why the united nations was formed, what the catalyst for charters was?
Sorry, but the Jesus I know is profoundly interested in human rights….
July 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Daisy
you and might have to differ - Jesus is interested in people not their rights - because we don’t have any. I defy anyone to arrive at a concept of human rights from Scripture. Knock yourself out.
Cheers
MN
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:28 am
Well thank you mn, you’ve just made my day, coming in after a mongrel of a job and seeing that challenge, a whole new question. Fantastic !
Are we talking about rights as a christian or rights to free speech or rights to be a person, or rights of a child to be protected from paedophiles or what?
Jesus saved my life, I feel I have a right to live seeing as how the God of the universe decided to ‘choose me’, sorry got to go Brian Ferry is on concert for diana,,,
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:13 am
Awesome concert..there you go hillsong..now THAT’S a show !!! Andrea Bocelli, Sarah Brightman, unreal!!!
Yeh mn, have I got the wrong end of the stick ? ‘we don’t have any’..?