Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Is there no end to the villainy?

Is there no end to the villainy?

I have seen it suggested that had the cesspit that is “child protection” in far north Queensland been revealed prior to the election on Nov 24 we may well still have a coalition government in Canberra .

Because there is no doubt that the Labor government here in Queensland have resorted to denial and the cover-up if the report in today’s OZ is any measure the instruction by the Department of child safety that incidents of abuse should NOT be reported to police beggars belief and may well be a matter for criminal sanction it’s self.

The review team heard that hundreds of reports of children being sexually abused and neglected in Cape York communities last year were kept from police by Child Safety officers, who had been directed not to pass the reports to police or even talk to them.

According to the team’s 400-page report, Detective Sergeant David Harold from Cairns Child Protection Investigation Unit told the team that police became aware of “numerous child protection issues through the Cape we hadn’t been advised of”.

While there have been numerous cases where child safety officers had failed to pass evidence to police, Sergeant Harold said: “It got to a political level at that stage where I believe ministers got involved and certain people were told not to speak to police. My job was to track down each (medical) clinic in the Cape and I got that under way … but then there was some political issues where a directive came from Brisbane (that) ‘You are not allowed to talk to the police – don’t tell them anything’.”

Sergeant Harold said that even the clinics were eventually told not to advise police of any reports they had made of abused or raped children and which had been sent to the Department of Child Safety.

The alleged political issues and the ministerial directive came soon after senior Northern Territory prosecutor Nanette Rogers exposed the horror of indigenous violence, sparking widespread outrage in Australia and ultimately leading to the Howard government’s intervention in Territory communities.

The Australian

This direction from the very top tiers of the state Labor government is just so contemptible that any sane person would expect that they should be thrown out of office on the strength of this scandal. Sadly we don’t exactly have the most competent opposition up here in the sunshine state, so I expect that the Labor party are likely to get away with this villainy.

Andrew Bolt is very fond of claiming that many of the so called “stolen generation” were taken to rescue them from just the sort abuse that is the centre of this scandal, and I am inclined to agree with his position and it is also easy to see that the evidence of the current situation is that there is at the very least an inertia amongst those who are charged with overseeing the welfare of the children in these remote communities that has resulted in a level of brutality, buggery, and neglect that we would not tolerate in our larger towns and cities.

 When Sergeant Harold visited Aurukun on June 6 last year, he was told about the girl, and he asked why a report had not been sent to him, as was the normal procedure.He had the girl and her carer, her aunt, brought to the police station, and she told him of the rapes. That was when Sergeant Harold instructed that she be taken to Cairns. But it did not happen, and within the next 24 hours, she was raped again.

The Australian

How can any society, that is worth it’s salt, not act and act decisively to ensure that its children are protected from such abuse? And how can a party that claims to have concern for the downtrodden as one of it’s central ethical foundations be so indifferent to these children in indigenous communities that they would sacrifice their virtue and safety for base political reasons? I will suggest that there is a mindset within the left that is so mired in the mythology of “the stolen generation” and so mired in the notion of “white guilt” about dispossessing the indigenous people from the land that they can’t do what needs to be done. It is effectively a racism of neglect and it should not be tolerated any longer.=

This anger just won’t go away Comrades

😡


33 Comments

  1. Madd McColl says:

    If these allegations are true it is indeed serious stuff but I doubt it would have swayed the election. Federal Liberal tried hard to win on state issues (here at least) but the electorate saw through the smokescreen and appeared offended at being taken for saps.

    On another note, Andrew Bolt toys with public ignorance on the stolen generation to make, what is, an incredibly weak case. His constant attempts to guilt the population into submission on the issue by twisting the meaning to one of “saving” abused children is testimony to how desperate he has become. The Stolen Generation issue should be debated by using historical facts to determine it’s truth, one should never use such emotive tactics to sway opinion on an historical debate. If carers are failing children by using the “stolen generations” excuse is has nothing to do with the validity of the stolen generation. Any idiot can see this.

    Please Iain, read the documentary evidence. You’ll find that in regards to the SG, AB is a bullshit artist of the highest order.

  2. Craigy says:

    “How can any society, that is worth it’s salt, not act and act decisively to ensure that its children are protected from such abuse?”

    Well, many good progressive people have been asking this for years. I guess the answer is many years of conservatives government from the ALP/LIB’s ‘me-too’ coatition.

    After all, it is conservatives have been the great defenders of the rights of men to abuse ‘their’ woman and children over many many years.

    Not much between the two parties so I agree with MM it wouldn’t have change the result of the election.

    From reading the shrill responses from the right on this issue, it’s clear to see that a violent response and the need for revenge is still alive and well in the dark hearts of the right.

    “And how can a party that claims to have concern for the downtrodden as one of it’s central ethical foundations be so indifferent to these children in indigenous communities that they would sacrifice their virtue and safty for base political reasons?”

    The ALP is just another right leaning government. No new ideas just the same old conservative responses, have an inquiry until the media fuss dies down, and then forget about it. It makes me weep.

    This post contains some of the same comments I made at ‘An O.Leftie’.

  3. Craigy says:

    “conservatives government”

    Should have been ‘conservative government’.

    And….. ‘it is conservatives that have been the great defenders…’

    Sorry, should have read it before hitting submit.

  4. Madd McColl says:

    You’ve drawn me into a subject that I find incredibly interesting Iain and that is, what makes a conservative so eager to deny the stolen generation in the face of a mountain of evidence? Because there literally is a mountain. Have you bothered to research before you’ve spoken? Have you merely unquestioningly swallowed the distortions of others? Can you explain these:

    ‘A half-caste under sixteen, whether male or female is legally a “neglected” child, and as such can be sentenced to an industrial school (sec.6, subsec. 7, of the “Industrial and Reformatory Schools Act of 1865”), most of the aboriginal missions being now so proclaimed…Acting under these powers, at least 126 half-caste nomads under sixteen years of age – 45 boys and 81 girls – have been brought under the controlling influences of the Northern missions during the quinquennium ending June, 1905. Another 41 half-caste children – 13 boys and 23 girls – have been similarly dealt with in the Southern districts during the eighteen months immediately preceding the same date.’

    ‘It must be admitted that the full-blood aboriginal is a member of an inferior race, which in the onward march of civilization must eventually succumb to the white race. This will become more noticeable as the lands, on which those aboriginals, not in Settlements or Missions, at present live by hunting &c, are taken over for settlement by the whites. It must also be admitted that the half-caste side by side with a white population is an undesirable.
    I believe also that both will, perforce, become inmates of our Settlements or Mission Stations.
    What then is to become of –
    (a) the half-castes
    (b) the quadroons
    (c) the all blacks 29
    Are they to earn their own living or be a permanent charge on the State?
    I do not think we need concern ourselves very much about the quadroons, because they are a negligible quantity and have some chance of being absorbed by marriage in the white population.
    I think, however, the time is not far distant when the “all blacks” will have to give way to the whites when the lands on which they live at present by hunting &c. come under occupation by white settlers. When that time comes the blacks will either have disappeared through sickness spread by the whites or been brought into different Settlements either under the control of the State or Missions. Before that time comes, however, it is safe to assume that there will be a good many more half-castes. The problem then is, what is to become of the half-castes on the different Settlements, more especially as it must be admitted that side by side with the white race they will be undesirables.
    I have heard of two suggested ways of dealing with them, viz., marrying “all blacks” or marrying whites, and, in my opinion, neither proposition is a suitable solution, although the latter if it could be brought about would be the more suitable… If, however, such marriages took place the result could only be the breeding up of an inferior race.
    With regard to the second proposition, it will be recognised that there is not likely to be many marriages of whites and half-castes, and such as did take place
    would only be with inferior whites and the results again would be the breeding of an inferior people.
    The final position would probably be the marriage of half-castes to half-castes, and that again would only produce an inferior people.
    In each of the above cases the results would be undesirable.
    Are they to earn their own living or be a permanent charge on the State?
    In answer to the first part of the question it appears to me that they will be allowed to earn their own living when they do not unduly enter into competition with the white worker. This is abundantly evident in connection with the pastoral and grazing industries in connection with which most of them are employed. At the present time such employers are working under a scale of wages approved by the A.W.U. This agreement really has the effect of an Award.
    In my opinion half-castes and all blacks will become a permanent charge on the State to the extent to which the different Settlements and Missions are short of being self-supporting…..
    The mainlanders, including the half-caste will, as I have previously pointed out, drift in to the Missions or our Settlements and be to a large extent a drain on Consolidated Revenue.
    At the present time there is no doubt that many of them are in a better position than many of our white relief workers, and this position will be accentuated if the half-caste population increases. I can remember over fifty years ago seeing blankets distributed to the blacks on 24th May, the then Queen’s Birthday.
    We caught up to that year in respect of some of the white population.
    Inferior races will have to go and, in my opinion, Governments, sooner or later, will have seriously to consider the question of sterilization of the half-caste.
    W.J.Gall, Under-Secretary, Home Department, Government of Queensland,’

    ‘Dear Mr Gall
    I am really very grateful to you for the copy of the memorandum on Aboriginals, which you have sent me, and which I have read with really great interest.
    It is a most difficult question, and one to which it seems almost impossible to find any solution, except the one mentioned in the last paragraph of your memorandum, and I cannot believe that any Government would be brave enough to legislate in that direction.’

    ‘The Halfcaste problem has received deeper consideration and more advanced and enlightened treatment in the Commonwealth Territories than in any other part of Australia. The Commonwealth which you must recognise is trustee of the White Australia Policy, has viewed this matter nationally, and has framed its policy accordingly…Halfcaste females in centres of population where alien races are prominent unfortunately exceed males in number. If this excess is permitted to mate with alien blood, the future of this country may very well be doomed to disaster. The Commonwealth has therefore endeavoured to elevate the Halfcaste to the standard of the white, with a view to his ultimate assimilation, encouraging the mating of white male and halfcaste female, thereby gradually eliminating colour and reducing one contributory factor in the breeding of Halfcastes…Unfortunately, the practical application of this policy has run ahead of the financial means of executing it, and much of a highly derogatory nature is heard of the Half-caste Home Darwin. Nobody recognises the necessity for certain improvements there, more acutely than the Commonwealth Government, but the disabilities existing have been very grossly exaggerated. The charge of overcrowding is the commonest to be made. It is not generally recognised that each halfcaste child has 300 cubic feet of air space on a latticed verandah permitting continuous and free ventilation in all weathers..’

    ‘It is the policy of the Administration to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs. The Darwin Home contains half-caste girls only. Half-caste boys are sent to the Alice Springs Home, but girls are sent there also.’

    ‘In the Territory the mating of aboriginals with any person other than an aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part aboriginal blood is also prohibited. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population. The adoption of a similar policy throughout the Commonwealth is, in my opinion, a matter of vital importance.
    (C.E. Cook).
    Chief Protector of Aboriginals, February 7’

    ‘With reference to the memorandum of the 7th February, by the Chief Protector of Aboriginals of the Northern Territory, the policy of mating half-castes with whites, for the purpose of breeding-out the colour, is that adopted by the Commonwealth Government on the recommendation of Dr. Cook.’

    ‘The removal of the children from Wave Hill by MacRobertson Miller aircraft was accompanied by distressing scenes, the like of which I wish never to experience again…I endeavoured to assuage the grief of the mothers by taking photographs of each of the children prior to their departure and these have been distributed among them. Also a dress length each was given the five mothers. Gifts of sweets to the children helped to break down a lot of their fear and I feel that removal by vehicle would have been affected without any fuss.
    Recommendations
    (1) I accordingly recommend that only in extreme cases is removal of part-aborigines affected by aircraft.
    (2) That if possible the children be left with their mothers until they are at least six years of age. At this age they are beginning to free themselves of maternal ties’

    etc…etc…etc…

    Why would he recommend that they wait to collect abused (that’s what you’re suggesting they are) children until they’re six years old Iain? It’s kinda wierd don’t you think?

  5. kg says:

    Iain, clinic staff in the NT were specifically instructed not to involve the police if they suspected child abuse, in the interests of maintaining a “harmonious relationship” with the locals.
    Trying to get any of the Darwin-based leeches who worked in social welfare to fly out to the communities was like pulling teeth and in any case, there was often no spare accommodation for them.
    In several communities it was simply too dangerous for the nurses to involve the police in any case, since once the police left the nurse/s were at the mercy of some very violent locals.
    They were reduced to fixing the damage as best they could, a soul-destroying situation to be in.

  6. Iain says:

    MM & Craigy
    I will answer you two together because you are both trying to make what is essentially the same point.

    As i see it there is very little doubt that some children were taken from their parents, as far as I’m concerned the bone of contention boils down to why they were taken and there we get into a far less sure situation. The Stolen Generation crowd would have you believe that every child was taken pursuant to a racist policy that had the intention of destroying indigenous culture, Andrew Bolt contends that many of the children in fact were taken to save them from neglect. There is clearly no substantive proof for either case and for many who support either contention it comes down to how you view human nature many on the left want to believe in “the evil conspiracy of the invaders” arguments and they subsequently accept all claims that support their views with out question.
    I have a rather more generous view of humanity that means that I think that most people act from basically good intentions and I think that it is far more likely that the majority of children were taken due to concerns for their welfare. But that was then and this is now and there is no doubt that the idea of the “stolen generation” has informed some welfare decisions that have had truly horrible consequences as with the girl in question here. and when it comes to the welfare of children we, as a society can’t afford to be swayed by the propaganda that makes saving children from neglect impossible.

  7. MK says:

    Only leftists could describe this as “stuff” and say – “After all, it is conservatives have been the great defenders of the rights of men to abuse ‘their’ woman and children over many many years.”

    And then seconds later – “From reading the shrill responses from the right on this issue, it’s clear to see that a violent response and the need for revenge is still alive and well in the dark hearts of the right.”

    So we conservatives support wife-beaters and child abusers [which according to the leftist is terrible, and i agree] but we also want to punish these wife-beaters and child abusers that we supposedly support, which is bad according to this weak and soft-hearted leftist.

  8. Iain says:

    You are right there MK and given the verbiage above I had let that one through to the keeper. What they forget or conveniently ignore is that if some sort of behaviour is transgressive of our law then there has to consequences of enough magnitude that doing the crime is less than attractive. For leftists like Craigy the law is something imposed by the “evil state” and as such part of the class war but for we conservatives the law is the embodiment of the social contract a framework for behaviour that allows a society to function. When we get down to it the problem at Aurukun boils down to a fundamental lack of respect for any sort of law. Elsewhere I have seen the wrong headed suggestion that tribal law should be revived to solve this problem but if there needs to be a revival of respect for the law in these communities then it has to be the same law that every other Australian lives under.

  9. Madd McColl says:

    That’s right Iain, just pretend that I didn’t give you a great deal of documentary evidence that a race based policy of child removal was enacted, I won’t notice. I serve you facts once again and you give me rubbish:

    ‘As i see it there is very little doubt that some children were taken from their parents, as far as I’m concerned the bone of contention boils down to why they were taken and there we get into a far less sure situation.’

    I’ve shown you the reasons given by those who ordered and carried out the removals FROM THIER OWN MOUTHS!!! Are you an ostrich? 🙂

    ‘The Stolen Generation crowd would have you believe that every child was taken pursuant to a racist policy that had the intention of destroying indigenous culture…’

    My god you know nothing about this do you! The intention wasn’t to destroy culture at all, it was enacted for many reasons over the decades and not once was this the goal. I once linked you to documents but it’s clear you prefer ignorance.

    ‘Andrew Bolt contends that many of the children in fact were taken to save them from neglect.’

    Wrong. AB contends that ALL of the children were taken to save them from neglect and that no racist policy was ever in place, he is very very wrong as the documents show:

    ‘It is the policy of the Administration to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs. The Darwin Home contains half-caste girls only. Half-caste boys are sent to the Alice Springs Home, but girls are sent there also.’

    ‘In the Territory the mating of aboriginals with any person other than an aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part aboriginal blood is also prohibited. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population. The adoption of a similar policy throughout the Commonwealth is, in my opinion, a matter of vital importance.
    (C.E. Cook).
    Chief Protector of Aboriginals, February 7′

    ‘With reference to the memorandum of the 7th February, by the Chief Protector of Aboriginals of the Northern Territory, the policy of mating half-castes with whites, for the purpose of breeding-out the colour, is that adopted by the Commonwealth Government on the recommendation of Dr. Cook.’’

    ‘There is clearly no substantive proof for either case and for many who support either contention it comes down to how you view human nature many on the left want to believe in “the evil conspiracy of the invaders” arguments and they subsequently accept all claims that support their views with out question.’

    So you are an Ostrch after all!!! It’s you who is supporting Bolt’s views without question, I’ve done the research already. There IS substantive proof, MP’s, protectors, police, nurses are all quoted in the evidence talking about fulfilling their duties while carrying out this very policy. There are lists of hundreds of children who were stated as removed purely because they were “half-castes”, AB ignores this stuff constantly, he is shamelessly close minded about the shear size of the evidence.

    Iain, if you’re intent on denying it please learn something about it and address the evidence I’ve given you. Show me why it is benign, but please don’t give me another vapid speal empty of facts.

  10. Craigy says:

    “For leftists like Craigy the law is something imposed by the “evil state” and as such part of the class war”

    I have never been the ‘leftist’ of your fantasy Iain and your view of my understanding of the law couldn’t be further from the truth. As usual your ideological blinkers stop you from understanding the truth about indigenous disadvantage.

    The law is not Black and White Iain. As I am sure you are aware, it is open to interpretation as the Marbo case showed so clearly.

    In this particular case we seem to see a judge interpreting the law in a way that many people find hard to understand. I am one of those people Iain, and contrary to your mythical leftist strawman, I think so are most people.

    I am interested in the views of those of you who identify with the right politically and what you think of the following;

    – What do you think the punishment should be for the minors involved in this rape?

    – Should the broader community take any responsibility for the problems of aboriginal disadvantage or is it of their own doing?

    – Is the problem of sexual abuse and violence towards women in the broader community due in part to the long standing conservative idea that women are the posessions of men and inferior just like blacks?

    – Did the conservative views expressed in the letters posted by MM above have any long standing negative impact on indigenous people and their ability to have successful, healthy lives?

    Does any of the recent history of aboriginal disenfranchisement have any connection to this problem behaviour or are Blacks just naturally savage in your view?

    Fisk away.

  11. Iain says:

    That’s right Iain, just pretend that I didn’t give you a great deal of documentary evidence that a race based policy of child removal was enacted, I won’t notice. I serve you facts once again and you give me rubbish:

    ‘As i see it there is very little doubt that some children were taken from their parents, as far as I’m concerned the bone of contention boils down to why they were taken and there we get into a far less sure situation.’

    I’ve shown you the reasons given by those who ordered and carried out the removals FROM THIER OWN MOUTHS!!! Are you an ostrich? 🙂

    MM you gave me 1411 words , with no providence, no dates, and you expect me to take it at face value? I suspect taht some of this stuff came from the Bringing them home report Am I right?

    ‘The Stolen Generation crowd would have you believe that every child was taken pursuant to a racist policy that had the intention of destroying indigenous culture…’

    My god you know nothing about this do you! The intention wasn’t to destroy culture at all, it was enacted for many reasons over the decades and not once was this the goal. I once linked you to documents but it’s clear you prefer ignorance.

    I suppose that I should have emphasised “EVERY” in the above quote but your respone is very much at odds with the claims of SG true believers.

    ‘Andrew Bolt contends that many of the children in fact were taken to save them from neglect.’

    Wrong. AB contends that ALL of the children were taken to save them from neglect and that no racist policy was ever in place, he is very very wrong as the documents show:

    ‘It is the policy of the Administration to collect all half-castes from the native camps at an early age and transfer them to the Government Institutions at Darwin and Alice Springs. The Darwin Home contains half-caste girls only. Half-caste boys are sent to the Alice Springs Home, but girls are sent there also.’

    ‘In the Territory the mating of aboriginals with any person other than an aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part aboriginal blood is also prohibited. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population. The adoption of a similar policy throughout the Commonwealth is, in my opinion, a matter of vital importance.
    (C.E. Cook).
    Chief Protector of Aboriginals, February 7′

    ‘With reference to the memorandum of the 7th February, by the Chief Protector of Aboriginals of the Northern Territory, the policy of mating half-castes with whites, for the purpose of breeding-out the colour, is that adopted by the Commonwealth Government on the recommendation of Dr. Cook.’’

    And the providence and date of these quotes is????

    None the less these quotes do not speak to the level of neglect and social dissolution evident in indigenous society at the time now does it?

    ‘There is clearly no substantive proof for either case and for many who support either contention it comes down to how you view human nature many on the left want to believe in “the evil conspiracy of the invaders” arguments and they subsequently accept all claims that support their views with out question.’

    So you are an Ostrch after all!!! It’s you who is supporting Bolt’s views without question, I’ve done the research already. There IS substantive proof, MP’s, protectors, police, nurses are all quoted in the evidence talking about fulfilling their duties while carrying out this very policy. There are lists of hundreds of children who were stated as removed purely because they were “half-castes”, AB ignores this stuff constantly, he is shamelessly close minded about the shear size of the evidence.

    MM the fact remains that none of the “proof” you cite has been strong enough to support legal action and all but one “Stolen Generation” case brought on the basis of your “evidence” has failed utterly. and even the one case that has found favour with the courts does not demonstrate the systemic conspiracy that you claim.

    Iain, if you’re intent on denying it please learn something about it and address the evidence I’ve given you. Show me why it is benign, but please don’t give me another vapid speal empty of facts.

    MM the purpose of my last comment was to make the point that I acknowledge that children were taken and to make the point that I have a more optimistic view of humanity and why people did what they did in relation to indigenous children , I think that some of the actions in the past may ell have been done for less than noble reasons but in the absence of any reliable clairvoyance we will never know for sure now will we?

    In any case that was then and this is now and the point that can not be disputed is that left leaning “do gooders” have been far to worried about how the contemporary removal of children, who are without doubt being abused, may be seen as a new “stolen generation’ and the result has been as abhorrent has the story of the ten year old that I have been talking about.

    #

    Craigy said, on December 15th, 2007 at 11:26 am (Edit)

    “For leftists like Craigy the law is something imposed by the “evil state” and as such part of the class war”

    I have never been the ‘leftist’ of your fantasy Iain and your view of my understanding of the law couldn’t be further from the truth. As usual your ideological blinkers stop you from understanding the truth about indigenous disadvantage.

    Craigy we both know that your claims to be “of the centre” depend very much on how we define our terms and just as you are entitled to characterise my politics as you please I am entitled to do likewise with you.

    The law is not Black and White Iain. As I am sure you are aware, it is open to interpretation as the Marbo case showed so clearly.

    Doh! So what exactly does this have to do with anything?

    In this particular case we seem to see a judge interpreting the law in a way that many people find hard to understand. I am one of those people Iain, and contrary to your mythical leftist strawman, I think so are most people.

    I’ll ignore the muddy rhetoric of your sentence and suggest to you that the one thing that even people who are not au fait with the legal niceties here realise that Sarah Bradley handed down manifestly inadequate sentences in this case. Even the tone of her sentencing remarks is far too touchy-feelly for instance when sentencing the adult offenders she was saying “you may go to jail if you re offend”.

    I am interested in the views of those of you who identify with the right politically and what you think of the following;

    – What do you think the punishment should be for the minors involved in this rape?

    Depends on the case but nothing less than five years in detention, Rape is a serious crime and it has to have serious consequences, even for minors.

    – Should the broader community take any responsibility for the problems of aboriginal disadvantage or is it of their own doing?

    Don’t really think that this is at all relevant to the topic at hand Craigy so I invite you to explain its relevance before I comment on this.

    – Is the problem of sexual abuse and violence towards women in the broader community due in part to the long standing conservative idea that women are the posessions of men and inferior just like blacks?

    It is not part of the conservative lexicon to view women as you suggest Craigy so this one from you is another DUD.

    – Did the conservative views expressed in the letters posted by MM above have any long standing negative impact on indigenous people and their ability to have successful, healthy lives?

    How could I possibly know that Craigy? For that matter how could you? I doubt that any indigenous people even knew about the content of those letters until very recently so any effect would require mystical powers that I do not think exist.

    Does any of the recent history of aboriginal disenfranchisement have any connection to this problem behaviour or are Blacks just naturally savage in your view?

    Nuh, not going to bite on this one either Nature vs Nurture arguments are far to hypothetical to be of any value here.

  12. Madd McColl says:

    ‘MM you gave me 1411 words , with no providence, no dates, and you expect me to take it at face value? I suspect taht some of this stuff came from the Bringing them home report Am I right?’

    Hahaha!!! The Bringing Them Home report!!!??? You’re wrong again Iain and are once again proving that you’ve dived into this issue without any knowledge of the ins and outs. The Bringing Them Home report doesn’t even begin to deal with the majority of evidence. Some months back I linked you to an online dossier of historical documents, some 50,000 words from which I gave you a mere 1411 (nice use of the word counter by the way) above. Try the whole thing this time:

    Click to access stolen.pdf

    ‘I suppose that I should have emphasised “EVERY” in the above quote but your respone is very much at odds with the claims of SG true believers.’

    I don’t give a shit what other people claim because I’m able to research the facts myself. If you’d done this you wouldn’t be looking so silly right now.

    ‘None the less these quotes do not speak to the level of neglect and social dissolution evident in indigenous society at the time now does it?’

    Am I actually reading this!??? Do we remove children from poor white families and attempt to “breed out the colour”? Your rationale is staggering!

    ‘MM the fact remains that none of the “proof” you cite has been strong enough to support legal action and all but one “Stolen Generation” case brought on the basis of your “evidence” has failed utterly. and even the one case that has found favour with the courts does not demonstrate the systemic conspiracy that you claim.’

    Research Iain, please do some of your own research! The case failed because it was legal to remove the children under the act in the N.T so the Commonwealth was acting within the law at the time. Council for Gunner and Cubillo accepted this fact and tried to argue that the Commonwealth was responsible for the shocking treatment they suffered while in custody. It wasn’t a trial whose objective was to prove the SG, it solely dealt with the two cases AFTER their removal. Read O’Loughlin:

    ‘The applicants, Mrs Lorna Cubillo and Mr Peter Gunner, are said to be members of “the Stolen Generation”. Neither the evidence in this trial, nor the reasons for judgment, deny the existence of “the Stolen Generation”. Numerous writings tell tragically of a distressing past. But this trial has focussed primarily on the personal histories of two people: Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner.’

    And as for Treverrow well this is where protagonists abuse the publics ignorance of the issue. When he was removed in S.A the law had previously been changed making it illegal at that time, hence the victory. See the link for the practice in early S.A.

    The fact remains Iain that the proof is so overwhelming, so conclusive that it should have been settled as an issue 10 years ago, and would have been if it wasn’t for aggressive talk-before-you-think polemicists who have tried to use it in the culture war. AB was served on a platter when he debated Robert Manne on this issue last year, I was there, it was an embarrassing moment for the man.

    As for today’s tragedies, what’s your point? Are you actually telling us to deny the SG purely because some idiots in Queensland have used it as an excuse to do nothing?

  13. Iain says:

    Hahaha!!! The Bringing Them Home report!!!??? You’re wrong again Iain and are once again proving that you’ve dived into this issue without any knowledge of the ins and outs. The Bringing Them Home report doesn’t even begin to deal with the majority of evidence. Some months back I linked you to an online dossier of historical documents, some 50,000 words from which I gave you a mere 1411 (nice use of the word counter by the way) above. Try the whole thing this time:

    I was just taking a stab in the dark mate and frankly as you failed to properly annotate your quotes, shit you even failed to say where they come from. It is you who should be just a little more apologetic here. Thank you for finally doing the right thing and citing your source but how about you try that in the first instance next time?


    ‘I suppose that I should have emphasised “EVERY” in the above quote but your response is very much at odds with the claims of SG true believers.’

    I don’t give a shit what other people claim because I’m able to research the facts myself. If you’d done this you wouldn’t be looking so silly right now.

    Now you either have one of the following misconceptions either you think that I retain 100% of everything that I read, or you think that I have the ability to use ESP to discern where some obscure quote comes from. Holding either belief makes YOU look silly.

    ‘None the less these quotes do not speak to the level of neglect and social dissolution evident in indigenous society at the time now does it?’

    Am I actually reading this!??? Do we remove children from poor white families and attempt to “breed out the colour”? Your rationale is staggering!

    And the relevance to the Girl in Aurukun is … what exactly?

    The fact remains Iain that the proof is so overwhelming, so conclusive that it should have been settled as an issue 10 years ago, and would have been if it wasn’t for aggressive talk-before-you-think polemicists who have tried to use it in the culture war. AB was served on a platter when he debated Robert Manne on this issue last year, I was there, it was an embarrassing moment for the man.

    Well I was not there but I did read a transcript and I would say that your perceptions of who won was very much coloured by your own prejudices and being a member of an audience that was very hostile to Andrew Bolt even before he spoke. In the end Manne was unable to name even ten children who were stolen for racist reasons, despite having plenty of notice and the assistance many other true believers, so please don’t keep on claiming it as any kind of victory for Robert Manne.

    As for today’s tragedies, what’s your point? Are you actually telling us to deny the SG purely because some idiots in Queensland have used it as an excuse to do nothing?

    You see MM as I have said the events of the past can not now be changed and the motivations of the protagonists can only be guessed at True or false claims about why children were taken in the past are really moot now in 2007 and If the result of activists like yourself continuing to flog the dead horse of the “stolen Generation” is more ten year old girls (or boys) being abused you should not be surprised that many people are going to start saying “yeah it may have been bad but get over it”.

    I think that post WW2 the Jews had the right attitude, namely they took the view that the holocaust was terrible but that the best thing that they could do in memory of their dead was not endless laments but a determination to succeed and that was the energy that has driven the state of Israel ever since. So what I’m saying is that as long as indigenous advocates like you insist on defining being indigenous in terms of being a victim then there will be no progress and no future for the children of places like Aurukun.

  14. kg says:

    “So what I’m saying is that as long as indigenous advocates like you insist on defining being indigenous in terms of being a victim then there will be no progress and no future for the children of places like Aurukun.”
    Exactly–long on whining, short on ideas. And the end result is that the left continues to enable the kind of abuse this girl suffered.
    Contemptible.

  15. Madd McColl says:

    ‘It is you who should be just a little more apologetic here. Thank you for finally doing the right thing and citing your source but how about you try that in the first instance next time?’

    As I’ve already said, I’d previously given you the link and presumed that you’d be the kind of person that would research all available facts before forming a concrete opinion from the distorted writings of a certain tabloid journalist. I was wrong. 😉

    ‘Now you either have one of the following misconceptions either you think that I retain 100% of everything that I read, or you think that I have the ability to use ESP to discern where some obscure quote comes from. Holding either belief makes YOU look silly.’

    Anyone who knows this subject throughout wouldn’t have made that error. So it’s still you who looks silly.

    ‘And the relevance to the Girl in Aurukun is … what exactly?’

    This is favourite trick of yours isn’t it? I address point 2, you fail to counter me and respond by questioning the relevance of point 2 to point 1. Try to say on topic.

    ‘Well I was not there but I did read a transcript and I would say that your perceptions of who won was very much coloured by your own prejudices and being a member of an audience that was very hostile to Andrew Bolt even before he spoke. In the end Manne was unable to name even ten children who were stolen for racist reasons, despite having plenty of notice and the assistance many other true believers, so please don’t keep on claiming it as any kind of victory for Robert Manne.’

    Hahahahahaha!!!!!!! 🙂 So you’re aware that Bolt recieved a dossier of documentary evidence on the night containing proof that he didn’t know existed? You’re aware that he was caught giving wrong accounts of stolen children’s stories, namely by arguing that Margaret Tuckers mother was in Sydney rather than right beside her screaming when authorities took her away, a disturbingly inaccurate portayal of Lorna Cubillo’s past, and claiming the “Rabbit Proof Fence” girls faced community ostracism rather than childhood teasing which diminished when they grew older. Furthermore, had you actually been there you’d know that Manne gave him 230 names, not the ten which Bolt comically repeats. “name ten”, “name ten” he cried to the amusement of everyone who already knew this information. So please don’t speak of things you clearly know nothing about.

    Bolt has never done any serious study on the SG, he admits to never exploring the archives and never carrying out the kind of exhaustive study that Manne has. I really should be understanding here because you’re the victim. Bolt has made yourself and others believe that he has a great knowledge of the issue and that he presents and addresses all the evidence, I’m afraid that’s wrong.

    ‘You see MM as I have said the events of the past can not now be changed and the motivations of the protagonists can only be guessed at True or false claims about why children were taken in the past are really moot now in 2007 and If the result of activists like yourself continuing to flog the dead horse of the “stolen Generation” is more ten year old girls (or boys) being abused you should not be surprised that many people are going to start saying “yeah it may have been bad but get over it”.’

    But that’s not what’s being said at all! Bolt and others are shamefully using abuse today as a moral bludgeon in an attempt to win another debate. This is a disgusting practise!! If you can’t argue these issues with historical evidence then don’t bother.

    ‘I think that post WW2 the Jews had the right attitude, namely they took the view that the holocaust was terrible but that the best thing that they could do in memory of their dead was not endless laments but a determination to succeed and that was the energy that has driven the state of Israel ever since.’

    The problem with that quote Iain is the third last word, “Israel”. The Holocaust was a key reason why the state of Israel was created, so you could say that people recognised the wrong and immediately attempted to make amends, unlike here where they just recieve attacks and scepticism.

    ‘So what I’m saying is that as long as indigenous advocates like you insist on defining being indigenous in terms of being a victim then there will be no progress and no future for the children of places like Aurukun.’

    This is about pure historical accuracy Iain and I’m addressing your lack of it. I’m no fan of a victim mentality, but I am a fan of truth. Your suggestion that we should forgo truth to assuage the victims is just wierd.

  16. Iain says:

    It is you who should be just a little more apologetic here. Thank you for finally doing the right thing and citing your source but how about you try that in the first instance next time?’As I’ve already said, I’d previously given you the link and presumed that you’d be the kind of person that would research all available facts before forming a concrete opinion from the distorted writings of a certain tabloid journalist. I was wrong.

    MM that is a pathetic retort and you know it. Had you mentioned that you were quoting from something that you had previously referenced I may have had a chance but I had no idea what you were quoting and it is your responsibility’s to provide the attribution not mine.

    ‘Now you either have one of the following misconceptions either you think that I retain 100% of everything that I read, or you think that I have the ability to use ESP to discern where some obscure quote comes from. Holding either belief makes YOU look silly.’

    Anyone who knows this subject throughout wouldn’t have made that error. So it’s still you who looks silly.

    No it is your hubris that assumes that I am reading from the same song sheet as you, and know the notes of your score as well as you do. 🙄

    ‘And the relevance to the Girl in Aurukun is … what exactly?’

    This is favourite trick of yours isn’t it? I address point 2, you fail to counter me and respond by questioning the relevance of point 2 to point 1. Try to say on topic.

    No this is an example of YOU being unable to provide an counter to my righteous anger about the abuse of this child and others so you have tried to distract the debate onto the veracity of the claims about the “stolen Generation” This is a very weak attempt to reclaim the moral high ground. The trouble is that you do it at the cost of a very abused child.

    ‘Well I was not there but I did read a transcript and I would say that your perceptions of who won was very much coloured by your own prejudices and being a member of an audience that was very hostile to Andrew Bolt even before he spoke. In the end Manne was unable to name even ten children who were stolen for racist reasons, despite having plenty of notice and the assistance many other true believers, so please don’t keep on claiming it as any kind of victory for Robert Manne.’

    Hahahahahaha!!!!!!! So you’re aware that Bolt received a dossier of documentary evidence on the night containing proof that he didn’t know existed? You’re aware that he was caught giving wrong accounts of stolen children’s stories, namely by arguing that Margaret Tuckers mother was in Sydney rather than right beside her screaming when authorities took her away, a disturbingly inaccurate portrayal of Lorna Cubillo’s past, and claiming the “Rabbit Proof Fence” girls faced community ostracism rather than childhood teasing which diminished when they grew older. Furthermore, had you actually been there you’d know that Manne gave him 230 names, not the ten which Bolt comically repeats. “name ten”, “name ten” he cried to the amusement of everyone who already knew this information. So please don’t speak of things you clearly know nothing about.

    MM I have been following this story for a long time and I even have a copy of Manne’s speech and his “dossier” which does not do as you claim at all at the time I wrote this :

    Manne and Name just ten ,or how my learned friend ignores an important issue
    July 4, 2006 by Iain

    I sent this comment into the Andrew Bolt Forum funny how my learned friend ,who should be concerned by issues like this has said nothing about Andrew calling Robert Manne to show us the evidence.

    From: Iain Hall
    Comment: Hi Andrew, Reading the Australian today I could not fail to notice a letter from Robert Manne having a whinge about you .He seems some what peeved that you are calling him to task about the stolen Generation Myth. He seems to think that he can actually provide proof that it is not a myth. Also he seems to want to debate you about it and implies that you are unwilling to do so . I actually think that it is good that your latest piece has spurred him on to seek the evidence. Which is of course what he should have done in the first place.

    Andrew replies: See above my reply to him, Iain. And you are right – if he didn’t know the names of any of those 25,000 he says were stolen between 1910 and 1970, how could he be sure any existed at all? Even now the names he offers are from children who were, for appalling reasons or forgivable, removed before 1910, and not in the period on which he’s written so very much to damn us. What makes this so tragic, of course, is that fear of this “stolen generations” myth has scared us into leaving many Aboriginal children to be raped, assaulted, neglected and even killed, when any other children would have been rescued. This is surely evil. A white middle-class festival of good feelings is being built on the broken bodies of black children. Our greatest crime isn’t that black children were taken then, but that some are not being taken now. Black leaders such as Sue Gordon and Wesley Aird are screaming for abused black children to be rescued, and are blaming the “stolen generations” for the fact they are not. And who has more than anyone promoted this deadly myth? It is no an urgent moral imperative to subject people like Manne to questioning on the facts behind their theorising.

    I see nothing offered by you that will change my opinion on this issue.

    Bolt has never done any serious study on the SG, he admits to never exploring the archives and never carrying out the kind of exhaustive study that Manne has. I really should be understanding here because you’re the victim. Bolt has made yourself and others believe that he has a great knowledge of the issue and that he presents and addresses all the evidence, I’m afraid that’s wrong.

    And you back this claim up with what exactly? Assumptions based on the fact that he has come to different conclusions to either You or Manne is the only thing that I can discern.

    ‘You see MM as I have said the events of the past can not now be changed and the motivations of the protagonists can only be guessed at True or false claims about why children were taken in the past are really moot now in 2007 and If the result of activists like yourself continuing to flog the dead horse of the “stolen Generation” is more ten year old girls (or boys) being abused you should not be surprised that many people are going to start saying “yeah it may have been bad but get over it”.’

    But that’s not what’s being said at all! Bolt and others are shamefully using abuse today as a moral bludgeon in an attempt to win another debate. This is a disgusting practise!! If you can’t argue these issues with historical evidence then don’t bother.

    Don’t you get it MM? I’m saying that it is time to get over the whole “Stolen Generation” thing, even the most egregious cases that could come under that definition cited by Manne happened a hundred years ago so the time has come to stop whining about it. In the news reports about the rape of the child it was clearly stated that fear of creating a new “stolen Generation” Has informed child welfare policy so citing the pernicious result of activists like yourself is absolutely on topic and entirely justified.

    ‘I think that post WW2 the Jews had the right attitude, namely they took the view that the holocaust was terrible but that the best thing that they could do in memory of their dead was not endless laments but a determination to succeed and that was the energy that has driven the state of Israel ever since.’

    The problem with that quote Iain is the third last word, “Israel”. The Holocaust was a key reason why the state of Israel was created, so you could say that people recognised the wrong and immediately attempted to make amends, unlike here where they just receive attacks and scepticism.

    WTF??? I am talking about the attitude of the survivors of the holocaust and you respond thus? sheesh are you incapable of understanding the parallels here?

    ‘So what I’m saying is that as long as indigenous advocates like you insist on defining being indigenous in terms of being a victim then there will be no progress and no future for the children of places like Aurukun.’

    This is about pure historical accuracy Iain and I’m addressing your lack of it. I’m no fan of a victim mentality, but I am a fan of truth. Your suggestion that we should forgo truth to assuage the victims is just weird.

    The point is that ALL history is debatable even when there is far more documentary evidence than we have pertaining to the treatment of indigenous people, but when we have evidence as fragmentary as we have on this issue it is just about impossible to be as definite about the motivation of the actors in that drama from the past. You seem to be suggestion that Robert Manne’s version is in some way definitive, when it clearly is not. It is not a case of me wishing to “forgo the truth” but an admission that the actual truth can not be definitively known and that in reality the here and now has to be dealt with rather than being concerned with minutia of historical events.

  17. Madd McColl says:

    ‘Had you mentioned that you were quoting from something that you had previously referenced I may have had a chance but I had no idea what you were quoting and it is your responsibility’s to provide the attribution not mine.’

    My my we are getting rather petty aren’t we. I can’t help but wonder how this matters? Had you taken the opportunity given you earlier to learn about this issue you wouldn’t have been caught out, had you bothered to read the documents I gave you then the quotes provided above would have struck you as familiar. Stop pretending that I’ve done something terribly wrong here as it’s clear that my only crime is to falsely presume that you would have done your research.

    ‘No this is an example of YOU being unable to provide an counter to my righteous anger about the abuse of this child and others so you have tried to distract the debate onto the veracity of the claims about the “stolen Generation” This is a very weak attempt to reclaim the moral high ground. The trouble is that you do it at the cost of a very abused child.’

    WTF!!!!????? What planet are you now on!? YOU BROUGHT UP THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIMS ABOUT THE STOLEN GENERATION! I’ll show you:

    ‘Andrew Bolt is very fond of claiming that many of the so called “stolen generation” were taken to rescue them from just the sort abuse that is the centre of this scandal, and I am inclined to agree with his position and it is also easy to see that the evidence of the current situation is that there is at the very least an inertia amongst those who are charged with overseeing the welfare of the children in these remote communities that has resulted in a level of brutality, buggery, and neglect that we would not tolerate in our larger towns and cities.

    I will suggest that there is a mindset within the left that is so mired in the mythology of “the stolen generation” and so mired in the notion of “white guilt” about dispossessing the indigenous people from the land that they can’t do what needs to be done. It is effectively a racism of neglect and it should not be tolerated any longer.’

    Clearly you have taken the abuse of this child as an opportunity to push for the denial of the SG in the same vien as Bolt. I’m attacking this position!! Furthermore, ironically you repeat the process while accusing me of twisting the debate:

    ‘The trouble is that you do it at the cost of a very abused child.’

    Clearly you folks have lost the ability to debate this in a rational manner concerned solely with FACTS. Now you’re attempting to guilt a denial out of people, it’s sad, sad stuff.

    ‘MM I have been following this story for a long time and I even have a copy of Manne’s speech and his “dossier” which does not do as you claim at all at the time I wrote this:’

    It’s really touching that you and Andrew appear so close Iain but WTF does that exchange have to do with proving me wrong? You won’t get the fact that Andrew was pulled up with dodgy information from the transcripts, or the dossier as this was during the discussion and later in a letter exchange in The Age. Andrew was given 230 names and ignored them. Furthermore, Andrew hasn’t once tackled the dossier and explained why the evidence within is benign, he’s ignored this also.

    On the dossier, have you actually read it all? Have you honestly trawled through it at all? Because if you had, why did appear as though you’d never seen the evidence above before?

    ‘I see nothing offered by you that will change my opinion on this issue.’

    Oh don’t get me wrong Iain I don’t expect you to change your opinion because you’ve already got too much riding on it, as does your mentor, and this is the shame. No matter what damning evidence is thrown at you two, no matter how many debates like these you lose, we all know that you’ll just keep on denying even though your position is butter thin.

    ‘And you back this claim up with what exactly? Assumptions based on the fact that he has come to different conclusions to either You or Manne is the only thing that I can discern.’

    Ummm….because he admitted to never going into the national archives. He hasn’t done a published study on the practise like Manne. He never ever addresses those pesky “bits of paper” where Protectors openly declare their eugenic intentions. He never mentions the admissions from patrol officers that ALL “half-caste” children were removed from their screaming mothers purely because of their caste, and that the process was “unnessesary”, a “cruel sort of business” which “saddened” them deeply. In the end they “refused to obey” their explicit “instructions”:

    ‘There were great scenes of gins screaming their lungs out…Great scenes…Post war they were taken off their breast forcibly’

    ‘Don’t you get it MM? I’m saying that it is time to get over the whole “Stolen Generation” thing, even the most egregious cases that could come under that definition cited by Manne happened a hundred years ago so the time has come to stop whining about it.’

    Stop whining about it???? Stop denying it!! Since when do we abandon a debate purely because it’s old news?? Are you going to ask Windschuttle to stop writing his next polemic because it all “happened a hundred years ago so the time has come to stop whining about it”? What a muddled position.

    ‘In the news reports about the rape of the child it was clearly stated that fear of creating a new “stolen Generation” Has informed child welfare policy so citing the pernicious result of activists like yourself is absolutely on topic and entirely justified.’

    I don’t even know where to begin with the above piece of confused, extremly dodgy logic. Us “activists” are arguing the validity of the SG by producing hard facts through pieces of documentary evidence and testimony. In this process the denialist position has been demolished again and again yet they still deny. If some welfare worker is too confused about history to do the right thing TODAY then this has NOTHING to do with the historical FACT of the SG. To suggest that we must now “shut up” about it and deny it due to these things is a case of conservatives taking advantage of child abuse to win a separate debate, it’s disgusting. Frankly YOU should be ashamed of yourself for being duped into adopting such a shameless position. Were it really something that could demonstrably be proven a “myth” then you might have a case, but to use welfare’s failings and the subsequent abuse in this fashion is just horrid.

    ‘I am talking about the attitude of the survivors of the holocaust and you respond thus? sheesh are you incapable of understanding the parallels here?’

    No Iain you fucked up the parallel. The world comiserated with the Jews, it felt shame, so much so that the Jews were given their own state!!! It’s from this position that they felt they could move on. Imagine they faced as much denial as the SG does, imagine there were no reparations, would things be the same?

    ‘but when we have evidence as fragmentary as we have on this issue it is just about impossible to be as definite about the motivation of the actors in that drama from the past.’

    Wrong, they clearly state their motivations over and over again.

    ‘You seem to be suggestion that Robert Manne’s version is in some way definitive, when it clearly is not.’

    Then prove why it is not, show me why the evidence is benign.

    ‘It is not a case of me wishing to “forgo the truth” but an admission that the actual truth can not be definitively known…’

    Why do you call it a “mythology” then? Why do you call it the “Stolen Generations myth”?

  18. Iain says:

    My my we are getting rather petty aren’t we. I can’t help but wonder how this matters? Had you taken the opportunity given you earlier to learn about this issue you wouldn’t have been caught out, had you bothered to read the documents I gave you then the quotes provided above would have struck you as familiar. Stop pretending that I’ve done something terribly wrong here as it’s clear that my only crime is to falsely presume that you would have done your research.

    The quotes did strike me being familiar because I had read the source document and I said so Are you trying to suggest that any one interested in a contentious issue is obliged to remember every possible source document that they may have read some months ago? All you needed to do is say some thing along the lines of “OH sorry I got the quotes from here… ” and don’t forget that a third party reading this thread would be at a total loss to know what you are raving on about either.

    WTF!!!!????? What planet are you now on!? YOU BROUGHT UP THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIMS ABOUT THE STOLEN GENERATION! I’ll show you:

    {…}
    Clearly you have taken the abuse of this child as an opportunity to push for the denial of the SG in the same vein as Bolt. I’m attacking this position!! Furthermore, ironically you repeat the process while accusing me of twisting the debate:

    ‘The trouble is that you do it at the cost of a very abused child.’

    Clearly you folks have lost the ability to debate this in a rational manner concerned solely with FACTS. Now you’re attempting to guilt a denial out of people, it’s sad, sad stuff.

    The whole point that I am making is that the “facts” that you claim in this matter are a bone of contention and I say that I am INCLINED to the same opinion as Andrew on this matter and I have made it clear that true or false the perceptions about the “Stolen Generation” of well meaning lefties like yourself has helped to create an moral environment where children that should be removed because they are being abused or neglected are left in harms way. As I said the truth or otherwise of the claims are an entirely moot point.

    ‘MM I have been following this story for a long time and I even have a copy of Manne’s speech and his “dossier” which does not do as you claim at all at the time I wrote this:’

    It’s really touching that you and Andrew appear so close Iain but WTF does that exchange have to do with proving me wrong? You won’t get the fact that Andrew was pulled up with dodgy information from the transcripts, or the dossier as this was during the discussion and later in a letter exchange in The Age. Andrew was given 230 names and ignored them. Furthermore, Andrew hasn’t once tackled the dossier and explained why the evidence within is benign, he’s ignored this also.

    On the dossier, have you actually read it all? Have you honestly trawled through it at all? Because if you had, why did appear as though you’d never seen the evidence above before?

    Yeah names like Topsy and Bob from 100 yeas ago because if I remember correctly most of the references in that dossier are pre 1910 and none of them can be attached to real definable individuals as Andrew says in the quote I included in my last comment none of it covers the period between 1910 and 1970

    ‘I see nothing offered by you that will change my opinion on this issue.’

    Oh don’t get me wrong Iain I don’t expect you to change your opinion because you’ve already got too much riding on it, as does your mentor, and this is the shame. No matter what damning evidence is thrown at you two, no matter how many debates like these you lose, we all know that you’ll just keep on denying even though your position is butter thin.

    I’m hardly loosing this debate MM You claim that I’m denying that children were taken, which I don’t You claim that statements from 100 years ago prove all of the claims about the “Stolen Generation which they certainly do not My position is simple : Argue about the ins and outs of history but it the only influences your view of this contentious issue have had are bad and they have cost the virtue and the lives of countless children.

    Ummm….because he admitted to never going into the national archives. He hasn’t done a published study on the practise like Manne. He never ever addresses those pesky “bits of paper” where Protectors openly declare their eugenic intentions. He never mentions the admissions from patrol officers that ALL “half-caste” children were removed from their screaming mothers purely because of their caste, and that the process was “unnecessary”, a “cruel sort of business” which “saddened” them deeply. In the end they “refused to obey” their explicit “instructions”:

    ‘There were great scenes of gins screaming their lungs out…Great scenes…Post war they were taken off their breast forcibly’

    Well answer me this MM have YOU spent time in the national archives? have you done a published study paper?, I don’t think so…

    Stop whining about it???? Stop denying it!! Since when do we abandon a debate purely because it’s old news?? Are you going to ask Windschuttle to stop writing his next polemic because it all “happened a hundred years ago so the time has come to stop whining about it”? What a muddled position.

    No, my position is entirely clear and cogent work of the problems of today like the situation of this little girl and get over all of the wrongs of the past , simple , practical first worry about how things happened another time , if at all.

    ‘In the news reports about the rape of the child it was clearly stated that fear of creating a new “stolen Generation” Has informed child welfare policy so citing the pernicious result of activists like yourself is absolutely on topic and entirely justified.’

    I don’t even know where to begin with the above piece of confused, extremely dodgy logic. Us “activists” are arguing the validity of the SG by producing hard facts through pieces of documentary evidence and testimony. In this process the denialist position has been demolished again and again yet they still deny. If some welfare worker is too confused about history to do the right thing TODAY then this has NOTHING to do with the historical FACT of the SG. To suggest that we must now “shut up” about it and deny it due to these things is a case of conservatives taking advantage of child abuse to win a separate debate, it’s disgusting. Frankly YOU should be ashamed of yourself for being duped into adopting such a shameless position. Were it really something that could demonstrably be proven a “myth” then you might have a case, but to use welfare’s failings and the subsequent abuse in this fashion is just horrid.

    But it is As I said oh so long ago the reasons why every child was removed and especially what motivated those who authorised their removal will never definitively be known. And when you say things like you do above (in my bold) I just know that you have no children of your own because being a parent of two small children has allowed me to understand just how horrendous the acts of that nine actually were , that you could be so dismissive of the serious wrong that has occurred pursuant to that which you believe Is mind boggling. I’m not “denying” anything but I am saying that the very idea of the stolen generation has had more ill effects that good results.

    ‘I am talking about the attitude of the survivors of the holocaust and you respond thus? sheesh are you incapable of understanding the parallels here?’

    No Iain you fucked up the parallel. The world commiserated with the Jews, it felt shame, so much so that the Jews were given their own state!!! It’s from this position that they felt they could move on. Imagine they faced as much denial as the SG does, imagine there were no reparations, would things be the same?

    That is not what I’m talking about at all MM I am talking about an attitudinal change among the post-war Jews, where before the war there was an attitude of wanting to be a small target after the war the Jews rediscovered that they were a nation of warriors I was talking about how the way that they saw themselves shifted not how the rest of the world reacted to the revelations about the holocaust.

    ‘but when we have evidence as fragmentary as we have on this issue it is just about impossible to be as definite about the motivation of the actors in that drama from the past.’

    Wrong, they clearly state their motivations over and over again.

    Considering that we are considering a very long period and numerous different jurisdictions the evidence is indeed fragmentary and Manne’s Dossier does not have anything terribly recent, after 1910 say

    ‘You seem to be suggestion that Robert Manne’s version is in some way definitive, when it clearly is not.’

    Then prove why it is not, show me why the evidence is benign.

    The reality is that all history is open to dispute and Manne is not exempt from having his opinions disputed and I will decline your invitation above but feel free to write in defence of your hero at your own blog. I actually have better things to do with my time.

    ‘It is not a case of me wishing to “forgo the truth” but an admission that the actual truth can not be definitively known…’

    Why do you call it a “mythology” then? Why do you call it the “Stolen Generations myth”?

    Because quite simply it is the mythology of the SG story that drives well meaning but deluded child welfare workers not to act when they should have , and it is the mythology of the stolen generation that has informed the decisions of judges like Sarah Bradley. The facts of the matter is that there has been a whole new generation of indigenous children who have been far more abused and ill used than any of the children taken for what ever reason in the past, at least many of the so called “stolen generation” got an education, and a chance in life what chance in life does a ten year old who’s brain was damaged before she was born by the grog, who was raped when she was seven and then again when she was ten When it comes down to it I don’t care that much about the wrongs of the distant past but I do care MORE about what is happening now and frankly you should too.

  19. kg says:

    “When it comes down to it I don’t care that much about the wrongs of the distant past but I do care MORE about what is happening now and frankly you should too.”
    Ah, but the verbiage posted above has served as an excellent distraction from what is happening right now, hasn’t it?
    Which is why I refuse to play the bullshit games the left draw people into.

  20. Iain says:

    I understand where you are coming from Keith but it was a slow day yesterday at Chez Hall so I made the effort to point out where MM is in error.

  21. Iain says:

    MM given or conversation of yesterday I thought that Andrew’s post of today is very much on topic

    But when “stolen generations” researcher Robert Manne is asked for just 10 names of these children stolen for racist, not welfare, reasons, what kind of names does he in fact give?

    Topsy is 12, and also has syphilis. Her father is gone and the whereabouts of her mother unknown. There is no treatment out where she lives, no school and no police.

    Dolly is 13 and seven months pregnant. She’s not with her parents and works for no wages on a station, kilometres from anything. She’s had no schooling and needs care.

    You might think the Stolen Generations Alliance must have many better names. But who is its Aboriginal co-patron (the other is Malcolm Fraser), and how was she “stolen”? Why, it’s the rescued Lowitja O’Donoghue.

    Only when I confronted her six years ago did she at last admit she had not been stolen, but abandoned.

    Her white father had dumped first his eldest two children, Eileen and Geoff, at a missionary-run home for abandoned and sick Aboriginal children in Quorn, and come back years later with three more, including Lowitja, who never saw him again.

    “He wanted to move on,” O’Donoghue conceded. “He didn’t want to be straddled (sic) with five kids . . . I haven’t forgiven him.”

    Only the youngest of the six children stayed with their Aboriginal mother, who’d agreed to send the others away, and it’s her we should pity most, given what I know of her fate…

    And when O’Donoghue publicly confirmed these facts, she also said she no longer wanted to be called “stolen”: “I now prefer to use the term ‘removed’.”

    from http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/saved_child_demands_compensation_from_rescuers/
    NB this is how you should annotate a quote MM 😉

  22. James Ozark says:

    . . .had you actually been there you’d know that Manne gave him 230 names. . .

    Something of a problem when considering the libel: ‘Stolen Generations’. Even 230 doesn’t cut it.

    So – some thoughts and questions. The quotes are from where, from how many people, and created under what circumstances? Are they examples of policy, or the writings of individuals? Are they indicative of a systemic and nation-wide confiscation of children, or effectively the diary entries of a relative handful of people, working over a century ago?

    So many questions – so few answers.

    It really must make one wonder. . .

    . . .you’d hope.

    That this is pathetic, as evidence goes, in demonstrating an entire nation’s ‘guilt’, frankly goes without saying.

  23. Madd McColl says:

    ‘All you needed to do is say some thing along the lines of “OH sorry I got the quotes from here… ” and don’t forget that a third party reading this thread would be at a total loss to know what you are raving on about either.’

    Oh sorry I got the quotes from here (the above dossier) third party. Settled?

    ‘The whole point that I am making is that the “facts” that you claim in this matter are a bone of contention and I say that I am INCLINED to the same opinion as Andrew on this matter and I have made it clear that true or false the perceptions about the “Stolen Generation” of well meaning lefties like yourself has helped to create an moral environment where children that should be removed because they are being abused or neglected are left in harms way. As I said the truth or otherwise of the claims are an entirely moot point.’

    OMG, this is getting farsical! Would you advise that we begin to deny the Armenian genocide because it has created an environment whereby Armenians are persecuted within Turkey today and tension continues to arise between the two states? The Stolen Generation doesn’t refer to “neglected” or “abused” children and the documents confirm this. Furthermore you have taken your position, you deny it, I have you in writing calling it a “myth”.

    ‘Yeah names like Topsy and Bob from 100 yeas ago because if I remember correctly most of the references in that dossier are pre 1910 and none of them can be attached to real definable individuals as Andrew says in the quote I included in my last comment none of it covers the period between 1910 and 1970’

    Names like “Topsy” were common throughout the period Iain, they’re common throughout the sources. Arguing that these names aren’t identifyable enough and are in an early period doesn’t mean that they aren’t real children removed for no good reason. Furthermore, Andrew can access names from later periods anytime he likes, the problem is he incorrectly attempts to simplify the issue and thereby gets confused. An example is with Peter Gunner who was removed post 1945 after eugenics was debunked. Here is when the policy changed tact (and the documents will show you this). Authorities continued to find it offensive that nearly white children were living with blacks and continued to remove them to be raised as whites though they pushed for some form of permission. This is how Gunner’s mother’s hand print came to be on the form. The problem with this is that it was a ruse, they never saw them again in spite of being assured that they would. This is the form she was given:

    “I, TOPSY KUNDRILBA being a full-blood Aboriginal (female) within the meaning of the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918-1953 of the Northern Territory, and residing at UTOPIA STATION do hereby request the DIRECTOR OF NATIVE AFFAIRS to declare my son PETER GUNNER aged seven (7) years, to be an Aboriginal within the meaning and for the purposes of the said Aboriginals Ordinance. MY reasons for requesting this action by the Director of Native Affairs are:

    1. My son is a Part-European blood, his father being a European.

    2. I desire my son to be educated and trained in accordance with accepted European standards, to which he is entitled by reason of his caste.

    3. I am unable myself to provide the means by which my son may derive the benefits of a standard European education.

    4. By placing my son in the care, custody and control of the Director of Native Affairs, the facilities of a standard education will be made available to him by admission to St. Mary’s Church of England Hostela t Alice Springs.”

    It is known that she had refused again and again to part with him but finally succumbed on the assurance that she’d see him regularly, she never saw him again. Gunner afterwards led a tragic life full of sexual abuse. Andrew’s claims that her final approval is evidence that he wasn’t the victim of a misguided race-based policy are false.

    ‘I’m hardly loosing this debate MM You claim that I’m denying that children were taken, which I don’t’

    You’re so obviously loosing Iain and this is further proof, you DO deny the existence of the “Stolen Generation” (being a group of children removed for race based reasons). As I’ve said before, you deploy terms like “stolen generation myth”.

    ‘Argue about the ins and outs of history but it the only influences your view of this contentious issue have had are bad and they have cost the virtue and the lives of countless children.’

    WTF??? I argue facts Iain stop attempting to guilt your way to victory. If you can’t defeat the facts then just give up.

    ‘Well answer me this MM have YOU spent time in the national archives? have you done a published study paper?, I don’t think so…’

    But Manne has and has presented his findings to us, his case is the stronger, most in depth and the most logical. Andrew hasn’t and his is a shallow, ignorant portrayal for those who can’t be bothered researching it. That’s why I love to debate this topic, the Bolt fans are so easily destroyed. Often they appear overwhelmed and use the same guilt trick you’re attempting here.

    ‘No, my position is entirely clear and cogent work of the problems of today like the situation of this little girl and get over all of the wrongs of the past , simple , practical first worry about how things happened another time , if at all.’

    Arkkkk!! What a mess of dodgy logic that is.

    ‘But it is As I said oh so long ago the reasons why every child was removed and especially what motivated those who authorised their removal will never definitively be known.’

    Wrong, they stated their motivations clearly:

    In the Territory the mating of aboriginals with any person other than an aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part aboriginal blood is also prohibited. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population.

    C.E. Cook

    I could keep this up, so stop acting as if such statements of intention don’t exist.

    ‘And when you say things like you do above (in my bold) I just know that you have no children of your own because being a parent of two small children has allowed me to understand just how horrendous the acts of that nine actually were , that you could be so dismissive of the serious wrong that has occurred pursuant to that which you believe Is mind boggling. I’m not “denying” anything but I am saying that the very idea of the stolen generation has had more ill effects that good results.’

    This is just rubbish Iain! Backed into a corner and unable to debate with facts you deploy the same cheap, emotive, moral bludgeons as Bolt.

    ‘That is not what I’m talking about at all MM I am talking about an attitudinal change among the post-war Jews, where before the war there was an attitude of wanting to be a small target after the war the Jews rediscovered that they were a nation of warriors I was talking about how the way that they saw themselves shifted not how the rest of the world reacted to the revelations about the holocaust.’

    I explained how their circumstances were very different, it was a bad parallel.

    ‘Considering that we are considering a very long period and numerous different jurisdictions the evidence is indeed fragmentary and Manne’s Dossier does not have anything terribly recent, after 1910 say’

    WTF!? So you haven’t actually read it then? You’ve been caught out son! You’ve obviously blindly believed a dishonest protagonist by the name of Andrew Bolt. Oops!!!

    ‘The reality is that all history is open to dispute and Manne is not exempt from having his opinions disputed and I will decline your invitation above but feel free to write in defence of your hero at your own blog. I actually have better things to do with my time.’

    Than giving a rational counter argument by using facts? It seems you’ve enough time for peddling un-thought-out catch cries gleaned from your mentor, your last paragraph of diatribe is testimony to that. How dare you imply that I don’t care about such a child purely because I’m concerned about holding propagandists like yourself to account for the lack of proof behind their bold claims. You’re transparently unable to debate this correctly because you’ve no case.

    ‘I understand where you are coming from Keith but it was a slow day yesterday at Chez Hall so I made the effort to point out where MM is in error.’

    Hahahahahaha!!!! And where have YOU done this!??

    Bolt again Iain!? “Topsy 12”, “Dolly 13” my my, funny how he keeps using the same 5 children in his attempt to deny the story of thousands, have you noticed this? Furthermore, he conveniently forgets to mention (again) that Manne gave him 230 names. If it’s facts you want, I’m happy to oblige:

    (vii) Inspector O. Drewry, Derby, to the Commissioner of Police, Perth, August 14 1919.

    In submitting the attached report, I desire to submit that this seizing and removing of these children is obnoxious to the Police and I trust that some official of the Aborigines Dept. will be appointed to do it. I submit that behind the power of the Chief Protector to order such seizure lies the point “for cause shown”, yet, in these cases no cause has been shown, yet he can seize all aboriginal or half-caste children under 16 years of age. No neglect has been shown by the mothers in these cases that would bring these children within the clauses as regards neglected children under the State Children’s Act.

    * Chief Protector of Aborigines, A.O. Neville, to R. Connell, Commissioner of Police, October 9 1919.

    If the duty of bringing in half-caste children is obnoxious to the Police, it is strange that this Department has not been previously advised of this, in view of the hundreds of cases that have had attention.

    (xi) Chief Protector of Aborigines, A.O. Neville, to the Commissioner of Police, July 14 1921.

    There are at the present time some thirteen (13) children in the vicinity of Fitzroy Crossing, some of whom should be removed to the Mission. I have not a complete list of these but they are known to your Officers. I should be very glad if something could be done to have them collected and sent along to Wyndham, where they will be taken over by the Mission Authorities.

    Children under six (6) years of age should not be removed unless they are entirely neglected, nor should quarter-castes, if favoring the whites in appearance, be sent along. Girls from six (6) to fourteen (14) years of age, and boys of a like age, are subjects for removal, but girls over that age should not go the Mission, and as a rule boys over 14 are best left where they are, providing employment is available for them. Quarter-caste children, if over six (6) years of age, should be given a chance of being brought up as white and should consequently be sent South to be placed in one of the Government Institutions.

    (xii) Chief Protector of Aborigines, A.O.Neville, to the Commissioner of Police, December 13 1922.

    I have referred the matter of the child “Dilly” to the State Children Department, as in my opinion such quarter-caste children should, if possible, be brought up as white children. The Secretary of the Department states that if this child is committed to the care of his Department as a neglected child, he will place her at one of the institutions in the metropolitan area. I should think this fact that the girl, who is only quarter-caste, is found in an aboriginal camp should be sufficient cause to treat her as a neglected child.

    From speech delivered by A. O. Neville, the Western Australian Administrator, to the Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Administrators, held in Canberra in April 1937.

    The opinion held by Western Australian authorities is that the problem of the native race, including half-castes, should be dealt with on a long-range plan. We should ask ourselves what will be the position, say, 50 years hence; it is not so much the position to-day that has to be considered. Western Australia has gone further in the development of such a long-range policy than has any other State, by accepting the view that ultimately the natives must be absorbed into the white population of Australia…Are we going to have a population of 1,000,000 blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there ever were any aborigines in Australia …

    Every administration has trouble with half-caste girls. I know of 200 or 300 girls, however, in Western Australia who have gone into domestic service and the majority are doing very well. Our policy is to send them out into the white community, and if a girl comes back pregnant our rule is to keep her for two years. The child is then taken away from the mother and sometimes never sees her again. Thus these children grow up as whites, knowing nothing of their own environment. At the expiration of the period of two years the mother goes back into service so it really does not matter if she has half a dozen children.

    (i) Letter by W. G. South, Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, November 30 1910

    Sir,
    …During the year several Half Caste children have been removed from the blacks’ camps and placed under the care and control of the State Children’s Department, with most encouraging results, the children are thriving and happy and will, I feel confident, grow up self-supporting members of the community, as they will know nothing of the habits of the Aborigines and will be given an occupation.
    Several letters have appeared in the press in opposition to the removal of these children from their cruel surroundings, but I think the writers have failed to grasp the seriousness of the problem now facing South Australia and some of the other States.
    Take the case of New South Wales, for example. There, according to the report of the “Board for Protection of Aborigines” dated May 1910, the Aboriginal population consisted of 2123 full-bloods and 5247 Half Castes. Between the years 1882 and 1909 the full bloods decreased from 6540 to 2123 and the Half Castes increased from 2379 to 5247.
    In this State a similar state of things is occurring as in 1901 the Census shows there were 502 Half Castes but in August 1909 from information supplied by the Police Officers it was found there were at least 766, and later records have brought the total up to about 800.
    At Point Pierce there were on 30th. June 1910, 145 Half Castes and 17 full-bloods, at Point McLeay River Murray and the Lakes there are about 350 Aborigines, 75% of whom are Half Castes.
    These figures, I think, prove the necessity of steps being taken to convert these people into useful members of the Community, instead of allowing them to grow up in the Camps where they acquire the lazy habits of the Aborigines, which unfits them for any regular occupation, and I am still firmly of opinion that the very best way is to treat them as neglected children, and have them placed under the care and control of the State Children’s Department until they reach the age of 18 years by which time they should be able to earn their own living and should no longer be considered nor treated as Aborigines.

    (ii) Letter by W. G. South, Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, August 7 1911.

    In my opinion, all half-caste children, especially girls, should be considered wards of the state and, should not be left in the blacks camps after they reach the age of four years, but should be placed in an industrial school, educated and taught trades or other occupations and, kept to constant work till they are old enough to take care of themselves, after which they should be compelled to find their own living and, should no longer be considered nor treated as Aborigines.
    It seems to me ridiculous to bring up a lot of practically white people in blacks camps…

    (iii) Letter by W. G. South, Chief Protector of Aborigines in South Australia, May 13 1913.

    Sir,
    I have the honour to inform you that I visited the natives camps at Bordertown on the 10th instant, but owing to the short time I could remain there, I was not able to get full particulars of the names, ages and circumstances of two families of half-caste and quadroon children living in the camps, but what I saw, leads me to think the children should be at once removed and placed under the State Children’s Department. Two of the children are white, with blue eyes, and one has auburn hair.

    HEY OZARK, read the above and weap mate. And if you’re really interested go and read the whole thing, I think you’ll find all your queries answered, though I know you’ll never admit your prior ignorance or how wrong you actually are.

    Peace. 😉

    Click to access stolen.pdf

  24. kg says:

    “OMG, this is getting farsical”
    Isn’t that the name of an opera?

  25. Iain says:

    MM this is your last go on my soap box , but feel free to write a response at your own blog which links back to here. You have become very repetitious and extremely dull .

    Oh sorry I got the quotes from here (the above dossier) third party. Settled?

    Yeah , apart from your appalling manners and lack of good grace when you have been shown to be clearly in error here.


    OMG, this is getting farsical! Would you advise that we begin to deny the Armenian genocide because it has created an environment whereby Armenians are persecuted within Turkey today and tension continues to arise between the two states? The Stolen Generation doesn’t refer to “neglected” or “abused” children and the documents confirm this. Furthermore you have taken your position, you deny it, I have you in writing calling it a “myth”.

    No the documents often suggest that the children were abused or neglected are trying to suggest that living conditions in the camps were some lovely picnic? Oh and stop trying to drag up yet another contentious issue.

    ‘Yeah names like Topsy and Bob from 100 yeas ago because if I remember correctly most of the references in that dossier are pre 1910 and none of them can be attached to real definable individuals as Andrew says in the quote I included in my last comment none of it covers the period between 1910 and 1970′

    Names like “Topsy” were common throughout the period Iain, they’re common throughout the sources. Arguing that these names aren’t identifyable enough and are in an early period doesn’t mean that they aren’t real children removed for no good reason. Furthermore, Andrew can access names from later periods anytime he likes, the problem is he incorrectly attempts to simplify the issue and thereby gets confused. An example is with Peter Gunner who was removed post 1945 after eugenics was debunked. Here is when the policy changed tact (and the documents will show you this). Authorities continued to find it offensive that nearly white children were living with blacks and continued to remove them to be raised as whites though they pushed for some form of permission. This is how Gunner’s mother’s hand print came to be on the form. The problem with this is that it was a ruse, they never saw them again in spite of being assured that they would. This is the form she was given:

    […]

    It is known that she had refused again and again to part with him but finally succumbed on the assurance that she’d see him regularly, she never saw him again. Gunner afterwards led a tragic life full of sexual abuse. Andrew’s claims that her final approval is evidence that he wasn’t the victim of a misguided race-based policy are false.

    How ever this was not sufficient for Gunner to win his court action now was it MM? as I have said repeatedly the evidence is fragmentary and we all know how memories are not that reliable and how they are amenable to selective editing , especially when there is the prospect of monetary gain.

    ‘I’m hardly loosing this debate MM You claim that I’m denying that children were taken, which I don’t’

    You’re so obviously loosing Iain and this is further proof, you DO deny the existence of the “Stolen Generation” (being a group of children removed for race based reasons). As I’ve said before, you deploy terms like “stolen generation myth”.

    Do you realise how tiresome your argument has become MM? I suggest you re read what I have written about this and thing about what I am actually saying, ignoring the fact that I do not accept your definition of “Stolen Generation” and you might just see that my argument is entirely pragmatic, entirely trying to get away from your guilt industryview of the situation of indigenous Australia.

    ‘Argue about the ins and outs of history but it the only influences your view of this contentious issue have had are bad and they have cost the virtue and the lives of countless children.’

    WTF??? I argue facts Iain stop attempting to guilt your way to victory. If you can’t defeat the facts then just give up.

    I hope that you do feel some guilt here MM because it is you and your fellow leftards have laid the foundations for the current suffering of indigenous women and children, at THAT is the topic of this post.

    ‘Well answer me this MM have YOU spent time in the national archives? have you done a published study paper?, I don’t think so…’

    But Manne has and has presented his findings to us, his case is the stronger, most in depth and the most logical. Andrew hasn’t and his is a shallow, ignorant portrayal for those who can’t be bothered researching it. That’s why I love to debate this topic, the Bolt fans are so easily destroyed. Often they appear overwhelmed and use the same guilt trick you’re attempting here.

    That would be a NO then, so by your own standards then you lack the prerequisites to engage in this debate yourself.

    ‘No, my position is entirely clear and cogent work of the problems of today like the situation of this little girl and get over all of the wrongs of the past , simple , practical first worry about how things happened another time , if at all.’

    Arkkkk!! What a mess of dodgy logic that is.

    No, it is entirely straight forward solve the problems of today first and foremost, where as you would have us endlessly debate the events of the past.


    This is just rubbish Iain! Backed into a corner and unable to debate with facts you deploy the same cheap, emotive, moral bludgeons as Bolt.

    You have posted thousands of words here and almost all of them have been intended to distract from the real issue which is the suffering of indigenous women and children , not one hundred years ago, not fifty years ago or even twenty years agobut what is happening now. I hope it does make you uncomfortable, that would at least prove that you do have a heart. I suggest that it is you who has been backed into a corner other wise you would not keep whining on about events of a hundred years ago.

    How dare you imply that I don’t care about such a child purely because I’m concerned about holding propagandists like yourself to account for the lack of proof behind their bold claims. You’re transparently unable to debate this correctly because you’ve no case.

    I dare to suggest it because you seem so unwilling to actually consider the subject of my post, choosing instead to try to divert the discussion down this cul de sac, You clearly care more about trying to score debating points about a pet aspect of our history than you do about the outrages of a judiciary that is serving our community very badly.

    ‘I understand where you are coming from Keith but it was a slow day yesterday at Chez Hall so I made the effort to point out where MM is in error.’

    Hahahahahaha!!!! And where have YOU done this!??

    See any of my previous comments or any of this one.

    Bolt again Iain!? “Topsy 12″, “Dolly 13″ my my, funny how he keeps using the same 5 children in his attempt to deny the story of thousands, have you noticed this? Furthermore, he conveniently forgets to mention (again) that Manne gave him 230 names. If it’s facts you want, I’m happy to oblige:

    When you consider that Manne claimed 25000 members to the “Stolen Generation” the 230 rather vague names amount to less than .oo1% of what he claims and yet you claim that that is enough to prove the case? HO HUM

    Look MM I have given you a very good run here and you still have no answer to the truth that the NOTION of the “Stolen Generation” is not something that brings anything but suffering to contemporary indigenous people ,in particular the women and children who have been and continue to be abused because of the fear, instilled by leftists like you MM, that to remove a child who is being abused is worse than leaving them with their abusers. ALL leftists are complicit in this and you should hang your head in shame because of it.

  26. kg says:

    As a postscript, I’d add that a number of us got together (Some whites, some elders) in one community to try and arrange an exchange program which would give Aboriginal kids a year at school in cities such as Townsville and white city kids a year in remote communities.
    Planning was well underway, the community was pretty much on board with the idea–until the white teachers got together and mounted a concerted campaign to torpedo the project, telling the locals that it was just an excuse for another “stolen generation”.
    They succeeded. And since then I’ve often wondered how many kids have suffered for those teacher’s white middle-class pretensions.

  27. Madd McColl says:

    And yet AGAIN you demonstrate that you still know nothing about this topic Iain, I just can’t let you get away with so many fallacies over and over again. I’m addressing your post on my blog.

    Cheers.

  28. Iain says:

    MM I look forward to it 😀
    Don’t forget to link to my blog 🙂

  29. James Ozark says:

    Hey MCCOLL, read my comment a little more carefully, ‘mate’.

    And thanks for the link.

    Unfortunately, and quite amazingly, I believe it actually supports Bolt’s contention (hardly Manne’s intent, I feel quite certain).

    The document (I assume the most damning evidence Manne could find – for the most part, a smattering of letters from a handful of people) is full of expressions of a welfare motive.

    Dates etc aside, Manne, however, and people like you, have clearly concentrated on the language these people used. It was a different time, MCCOLL; they weren’t versed in the PC-speak you and Manne are using to judge their motives.

    Manne’s document was a fascinating read.

  30. Madd McColl says:

    Oh Ozark Hahahahahahaha!!!!! Thanks mate, I haven’t laughed that hard for a while! 🙂

  31. […] blog pulling him up on the terrible fallacies and horrid logic he’s been repeating about the Stolen Generation. Eventually he got fed up with being shown his errors over and over again and called and end to it, […]

  32. James Ozark says:

    “Oh Ozark Hahahahahahaha!!!!! Thanks mate, I haven’t laughed that hard for a while!”

    That’s it?

    You – haven’t read it, have you.

    Not laughing at all. . . .

  33. James Ozark says:

    McColl – you’re not seeing the wood for the trees.

    They’re not talking about a race – they’re talkng about a culture (hence the ‘aboriginal camps’; the ‘chinese camps’).

    The letters are about what was best for these people (rightly or wrongly), as the writers saw it.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: