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 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 am
mn, human rights are another way of saying that we as a society have responsibilities to each person. I would say this comes from the concept of man being made in the image of God and has been an issue ever since the question was asked “Am I my brothers keeper?”. “Do unto others” also comes into it as Janet said.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 am
mn…geez, us human rights advocates just can’t win. First secularists had to prove that human rights don’t “need God”, now Christians are claiming that it’s not possible to “arrive at a concept of human rights from Scripture”. If you’re right, then a lot of people have wasted their careers…
What exactly are you talking about when you talk about “human rights”? All societies have norms and law, and we’ve got some record of the norms and law of ancient societies in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible…and these societies weren’t alone in having some norms + laws to protect basic rights. We could start with “welcoming the stranger”…
I’ve been meaning to have a read of this for a while:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mnp/rhrs/2006/00000001/00000002/art00002
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Thanks for posting the link to a highly interesting read Bec.
Your a hoot mn, “knock myself out”, indeed?
I have done as you suggested now I am a little exhausted as I have ‘knocked myself out’, the consquences of taking your advise have been as follows:
I had to call the police to see the evidence of my assaulting myself, in turn I was arrested for common assault, then I had obtain legal counsel, I then went to court and both the prosecution and defense had to have judical say about the alleged actions, motivations and supporting evidence of the alledged assault, then a group of my peers found me guilty, then a judge sentenced me for “knocking myself out”, then I received a suspended sentence. I then had to go to a court appointed social worker to referral for anger management with a professional counselor, then I went to see the counsellor who assisted me to see what the origin of my self loathing and inappropriate action out was, together with the counsellor I have worked to formulated an individual anger management strategy. I am very grateful for all of these people for assisting me to uphold my rights under the law and for encouraging me to do what is right and to understand the psychology of moral development in human beings.
Whew….its been a big day, now I am throughly exhausted….
“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” Micah 6:8.
This is bible, right? To act justly…. lets just ponder that command of scripture for a moment shall we? Would you not agree that the charters of the United Nations and the formulation of human rights are an attempt to outline what “act justly” might practically mean in our modern or post modern or postmodern times? (Whatever you fancy)
You did not answer my original question? Do you remember what the catalyst was for the formation of the United Nations? What proceeded it’s formation? It was something to do with grossly injust, abhorant, indecent legislations that effectively wiped out certain people groups ‘rights’.
That’s just off the top of my head….let the games begin!
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Daisy
don’t have time to respond in full right now, but gee you’ve been a busy girl. I think you should get a medal for singlehandedly making the biggest and most comprehensive improvments to the efficiency of our justice system ever. just imagine all that in one day!!
But I’ll ask a question: I don’t know, what was the catalyst for the formation of the UN?
Not sure of its relevance anyway - we won’t see the UN in heaven.
Cheers
MN
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
mn…are you serious about not knowing the history of the UN?
Gotta love search engines:
http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm
The UN, and the modern human rights system are generally (invariably?) regarded as having their roots in the aftermath of WWII. I highly recommend Geoffrey Robertson’s ‘Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice’ - it’s a good ‘potted history’ of (modern) human rights, an an entertaining and intellectually stimulating read. Or maybe I’m just a nerd.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Bec
I know it came out of post WW2, as a follow up to the failed League of Nations. Anything else I might have known I have forgotten.
You should be in book sales - that’s two out of two for giving a book a plug today.
Cheers
MN
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
The question that’s been on my mind..is if there were found to be clusters of child abuse in Toorak, Vaucluse or Dalkeith…how accepting the locals would be of Australian army soldiers being deployed in the streets of those communities.
I’m reluctant to use the word ‘racism’…but it does appear that outback Aboriginal communities are softer targets for top-down ’solutions’.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
So would you rather nobody did anything then Lance?
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
“So would you rather nobody did anything then Lance?”
Ummmm…nope….don’t recall saying that.
“The question that’s been on my mind..is if there were found to be clusters of child abuse in Toorak, Vaucluse or Dalkeith…how accepting the locals would be of Australian army soldiers being deployed in the streets of those communities.
I’m reluctant to use the word ‘racism’…but it does appear that outback Aboriginal communities are softer targets for top-down ’solutions’…”
My comments were based on an interview I did last night with former Australian army chief Lieutenant General John Sanderson, who is now WA’s special adviser on indigenous affairs.
He said that he couldn’t see how soldiers kicking footies and playing guitars with kids was going to make a difference.
He advocated a longer-term approach ..working closely with the children’s parents and grandparents.
‘Doing nothing’ would actually be the pentecostal approach.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
mn…LOL…I haven’t read the first one, I read the Robertson one a few years ago, and it’s a great read. So what do you mean when you say you don’t know about the history?
turtleneck - your statement is EXACTLY what is so frustrating. If you oppose Howard’s measures, you’re accused of advocating “doing nothing” or “not caring about the children”…whoops, sorry, I mean “INNOCENT” children…Howard’s favourite phrase at the moment.
This is, at best, an unfair and ignorant tactic, at worst, it is downright manipulative. It’s like people saying to the Rev “oh, so you’re a pacifist, yeah? I guess that means you don’t care if people die in Rwanda/Solomons/Timor/insert other country suffering from civil conflict”.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I could care less if it was John Howard or Blinky Bill. At least someone is doing something. Having a good (male) friend who was interfered with as a youngster, I understand how painful it still is for him. If ANYONE can stop it ANYWHERE then good. Nothing to do with what church you do or don’t go to or what political party you support. It should just be done…. fullstop. For goodness sake, lay aside your soapboxes for once and see that it goes far deeper than your or my comfy little suburban existence.
July 2nd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I could care less if it was John Howard or Blinky Bill too.
I have numerous friends who were “interfered” with too. I actually threw up after chatting to one of them about it last week.
This isn’t about soapboxes - this is about believing that Howard’s approach is actually going to cause more harm (including more sexual violence) than good.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:47 pm
“Atleast they are doing something”, is not the same as doing the right thing, or even doing a good thing. What John Howard is doing is not going to create sustainable change. What John Howard has done is waited until this crisis got to be worse and worse, then he creates a heavy handed approach that once again causes a marginalized and victimized culture to be “saved” by the white people that know better, just in time for an election. What needed to be done a long time ago was better policing, better education, more social workers, and more opportunities for aboriginal people, all done with the directions and oversight of the tribal elders.
My very own brother was “interferred” with, as was my father, and many others very close to me, so I have a deep heart for these children. And I cannot vote in Australia, nor do I vote in America as I am an anarchist, so don’t read me the politics accusation either. I want children to be protected from abuse, all kinds of abuse, including systemic injustice, racism, and hopelessness. John Howards top down look I am helping the dark fellas, I am so compassionate plan, will in the end only make things worse.
rev
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:56 pm
ATSIC was given billions of dollars to help aboriginal communities and they blew it big time.
Greedy aboriginals at the top are the most to blame.
Howard’s way might not be the solution but maybe it may get the ball rolling for something to evolve.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Why can’t we get the ball rolling in a more timely and less draconian way?
rev
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
To Bec, ifIknewthen, Warren, Daisy et al
Definition of right(s)
1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include: various freedoms; protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property; civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts; natural rights accepted by civilized societies; human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor; and such U.S. constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct.
It is quite likely I occupy quite a different position on this to many of you.
The whole concept of human rights is predicated on some sort of intrinsic entitlement. If a person is an atheist humanist secularist this makes no sense at all, in that there can be nothing intrinsic - everything is a random event in a nonsensical universe. So on that level there can’t be a set of intrinsic human rights.
It is one of the same problems I have with Dawkins and people of his ilk - he who doesn’t believe in God appeals to us that we should be the same in the name of reason and logic which by extension then can only be human constructs and nothing to do with an intrinsic universe or Creator outside of the universe - an atheist or agnostic can mount as many arguments as they like for logic and reason but get snookered everytime by the same if they have any honesty. If I wasn’t a Christian I would subscribe to an existentialism of the Camus variety - death is the barrier to the great unknown - the only worthwhile thing is conquering death.
If a person isn’t an atheist or agnostic and does believe in “God”, who is He, what does He want of us, and how should I live in response to that.
As a Christian I don’t believe we have any rights - nobody will be there standing on Judgment Day saying throwing me into the lake of fire is a breach of my natural human rights and a breach of UN Human Rights conventions - we will be either worshipping, begging, wailing or gnashing our teeth.
The issue I have with the way human rights are spoken of and contextualised is the sense of entitlement which they confer before a sovereign God. If there is any such thing as a right they come from two main sources. And they are less rights and more obligations.
As Warren indicated the first of these resides in that every person bears the image of his or her Creator, which demands a level of respect that we often don’t give. It is not a sense of entitlement or right that any of us have, but something which is owed in fact to God - who do we sin against - we sin against each other but in a real sense we sin only against God - cause He makes the rules not us.
The second comes through salvation in which which we are adopted as the sons and daughters of God thru Jesus.
In neither of these things do I see a “right” as our society uses the word, but rather an obligation of love and stewardship toward our world and each other - to love and honour each other as the image bearers of God, and even moreso if people are our Christian brothers and sisters - how should we be known.
I think a major issue in any discussion of this nature is the baggage that comes with “rights”. We end up changing the nature of the discussion from a basis of what God requires of us, to changing the rules to being exclusive of God if not in toto, at least in terms of his Sovereignyy over us - that is our natural and the world’s inclination - Eden, Babel, the nations, the UN etc.
ifIknewthen hit the nail on the head when he said the current situation is because we do not love our Aboriginal brothers and sisters - I think if they disappeared many people would feel guilty but relieved. What we really have is a hardness of heart. For those of us that don’t, we don’t really know how to respond anyway. Perhaps we should pray that God teach and reveal what means to love in this context - a number of you have expressed some ideas about that including in the first instance getting down and dirty and listening. Also what were the two greatest commandments? It wasn’t “I’ve got my rights”.
With respect to Rev’s last question - I know what you’re saying but the simple answer is we haven’t so far, and in truth this is probably the best response so far - that is perhaps a measure of where we as a nation really are. The trick is use the current impetus to change it into the better response that you all want, rather than gripe about the one we have which we didn’t have two weeks ago.
To Lance if there were problems in Toorak you wouldn’t get soldiers but you would get high priced professionals glad to hang up their shingle there and help. The soldiers are there because Howard can tell them to go and they will unlike the rest of us.
Cheers
MN
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Oh and by the way, if Howard tried to make us go we wouldn’t because we have our rights (unless you’re public servant subject to a machinery of government orde - been there, done that…the bastard).
Cheers
MN
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Should read “machinery of government order”
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Rev, keen to hear your thoughts on a positive way forward.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 am
Well, I believe that there are plenty of ideas, and creative ways forward that would come out of the communities themselves, if we could find people to work with the communities in ways that empower them, and not create power structures that would be immediately grasped at by the “greedy, or power hungry”.
Some of the suggestions I would make would be for more education in both alcohol and drug issues as well as investing in schools.
I would suggest making huge incentives to encourage aboriginal businessmen, and women, educators, medical and social workers to stay in their communities, as well as encourage those that are not from these communities to be educated in aboriginal culture and relocated to these areas.
I would suggest making small business loans to encourage local economies, with proper oversight and accountability.
I would suggest churches throughout Australia take this seriously, and start looking for people to go stand with their aboriginal brothers and sisters in intentional communities.
I would suggest immediately removing all huffable petrol, and placing strict restrictions on huffable paints.
I would suggest creating safe houses for women with families that are being abused, or in abject poverty.
I think the abolition of alcohol in the united states shows that this not only doesn’t work, but creates blackmarket situations where the creative few get rich, and those addicted wind up going further and further into crime to support their habit.
And I suggest the kind of prayer that asks what can I do, rather than what will God do?
rev
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:13 am
Everyone agrees that the figure of one in three female children being abused is appalling and clearly something must be done. Communities which allow this to happen are obviously complicit in the crimes and therefore give up whatever rights they may have had to running their own affairs, land etc.
But hang on, thats the figure for the whole of Australia. So the community we are talking about includes you and me. Maybe we should all put down our rocks, go home and have a good think about ourselves.
Lets start with ourselves before we start invading third-world countries.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
very good word there.
rev
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 am
“I would suggest creating safe houses for women with families that are being abused, or in abject poverty.”
I was personally involved in pitching the government for two safe houses (one for men and one for women… believe it or not the women bash the blokes pretty good too) in a town called Coen in far north Queensland. We succeeded and they were given the green light. I got a card from a young aboriginal girl with a picture of her and her baby saying thank you. Was pretty special for me.
July 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
mn…this is a big, long and complex debate, and not one I really have the time or inclination to get into right now…the one thing I would say is that you seem to be conflating rights with “being entitled to make demands of God”, and this isn’t how I see them.
I’m more interested in the other discussion that’s occurring in this thread…
WT, that’s a grew point about invading third-world countries…like I said earlier in this thread, I can’t help but think about whether Howard could get away with this in any other context, be it Toorak or Honiara. I suspect not.
TN, I haven’t read a lot about it, but I have read a little about violence in indigenous communities, and it seems to me that there’s huge cultural issues there too…violence seems to have been such a big part of dispute-resolution that I wonder whether it’s often been addressed from “white frameworks” that don’t work in those contexts. I’m not excusing violence - one of my TI friends often refers to “bullsh*t law” to describe the manipulation of custom to justify things which weren’t “traditionally acceptable”, and I agree with him that this is a common problem. However there certainly are different ways of communicating and resolving problems in different cultures, and I wonder whether white people have failed to get their head around this, and whether there are forms of violence which might be more legitimate than others? I’m not sure how much sense I’m making - it sounds like you’d know a lot more about this than me…
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Bec
I’m not conflating human rights with being entitled to make demands on God - I happen to think that in a world that denies God by and large they are inextricably joined at the hip - the fact we require “law” that often sanctions both legitimate protections and illegitimate entitlements is a tacit admission that human kingdoms actively work against the kingdom of God. And in any case what I am arguing is that the reason to support people suffering from anything is in the first instance because every person is an image bearer of their Creator, and secondly because we are called to love our neighbours. The necessity to provide protections through “human law” is in fact a statement of our ongoing an unmitigated failure and fallenness.
Nevertheless I do agree that WT, Rev and TN have actually turned the conversation away from bagging Howard because he did something when things were not being done before, to what we should actually be doing. Much more important to consider what is actually “doing good” in our world today.
Rev’s suggestion… “And I suggest the kind of prayer that asks what can I do, rather than what will God do?” …sheets home our personal responsibility and accountability here.
Cheers
MN
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Oh, please don’t think I have stopped bagging Howard, he has not done a damn thing until he thought it might bring some votes in before the election, and then he chooses a heavy handed approach that further alienates and marginalizes an already severely victimized people. I do think that that truth needs to be told, and not covered up by “well at least he is doing something”.
rev
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I see rights as social justice. Rights are not about me demanding entitlement rather rights have been developed so I can practically see what being my brothers keeper might look like in the age in which I live.
My entitlement is to be vigilant that the rights of ‘others’ are being upheld.
Evil prospers when good men (women) do nothing…..
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 pm
I’m about to walk up to the shops and buy some fish and chips and a bottle of Coke.
I now want to be given credit for ‘at least doing something’.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Congrats Lance… you’re a model citizen
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I’ve been directly impacted by Howard more than a lot of people (another story and not terminal), and I am certainly no supporter of him. But I am amazed at the number of people that think whinging and bitching about what he does will achieve what they want.
History over the last 10+ years has proved has proved exactly the opposite. Unless people have something to offer in the positive or as an viable alternative they have nothing.
Anyway back to the letter to the pollies idea, may be said letter broadly supporting the recommendations of the NT report with Rev’s suggestions following and a brief point about putting into place measures to facilitate long term change through local community “empowerment” and “ownership”.
Anything longer than a page won’t get read….ever… no more than a page has a remote chance.
Cheers
MN