Home » Posts tagged 'Aurukun'
Tag Archives: Aurukun
“The new racism: even the Left now chokes on its fruits” is spot on!
Very good post from Mr Bolt about the racism of the left, recommended to all readers who value the idea that all people are actually equal in their humanity:
Andrew Bolt
Saturday, November 06, 2010 at 03:58pm
The Left-wing Prospect magazine – or of the most thoughtful and genuinely challenging I know – has in its October edition published several pieces attacking the new racism of the Left, that has in fact caused more division, oppression and injustice than it ever hoped to heal. Some excerpts:
Munira Mirza, advisor to London’s mayor on arts and culture:
The following articles are by people who want to change the way in which racism and diversity are discussed in Britain and question the assumptions of some “official anti-racism.” None of them is white and therefore cannot be easily dismissed as ignorant, naive, or unwittingly prejudiced. They write about the effect of anti-racist policies in education, psychiatry and the arts. It is because they care about equality and our common humanity that they wish to challenge some of the assumptions in policymaking today.
The authors make some common points. Race is no longer the significant disadvantage it is often portrayed to be. In a range of areas—educational attainment, career progression, rates of criminality, social mobility—class and socio-economic background are more important. Indeed, a number of ethnic groups in Britain, particularly Indians and Chinese, perform better than average in many areas…
The writers also point out that while old prejudices have faded, new paternalistic stereotypes are growing. To engage minority students, particularly if they are disruptive and struggling with the mainstream curriculum, teachers are encouraged to focus on “their culture” or “their history.” Black artists are encouraged to explore their identity but are then pigeonholed according to their ethnicity. We may have seen the decline of old racism, but we are witnessing a new kind of racialising.
Perhaps most importantly, we are afraid to discuss race in an honest way, even with our colleagues and friends. The famous Ali G phrase, “Is it cos I is black?” is funny precisely because it hits a nerve. Many of us have seen an innocent remark misinterpreted as racist. Being falsely accused of racism is, at best, unpleasant and at worst, can destroy a career. Meanwhile, some people from ethnic minorities are left unsure whether an opportunity or promotion has been given to them on the basis of merit or box ticking, and can face the quiet resentment of colleagues…
In this new approach, no one and everyone is guilty of racism. Any unequal outcome is assumed to be the result of prejudice…
Does this heightened awareness of racism help to stamp it out? Quite the opposite. It creates a climate of suspicion and anxiety. Suddenly your colleague is a potential victim of your unwitting racism. A minor slight can be seen as an offence…
The victims are often ethnic minorities themselves….Over the past two decades the emphasis on disadvantage among different groups seems to have entrenched differences and feelings of victimisation. And criticism of “victim politics” is shot down by those who claim it will encourage extremists such as the BNP. Arguably the opposite is true. The BNP has not merely gained support in the era of multicultural policies, it has gained support because of them.
I am rather expecting that certain writers at Pure Petulance will let this one right through to the keeper because if they wrote about they would then they would have to confront their own patronising racism and that would be a bridge too far for authors who have blinkers on their blinkers.
Cheers Comrades
Half a million page views at the Sandpit
I know that statistical miles stones are really meaningless but that does not stop you feeling pretty good when you reach them. Well if you keep an eye on the hit counter at the bottom of the page some time today I expect that you will see the counter tick over t0 the magical “500,000” mark . That is pretty good for a modest blog written as a bit of fun .
Thanks very much to all of those who take the time to read what I and my friends put up here and a special thanks to all of those who take the time to comment and argue with what is on this web-page. Commentary and argument is the life blood of blogging and long may it keep pumping at the Sandpit.
Cheers Comrades
Right on Anna!
There are not many times that I am willing to endorse something pronounced by our beloved premier Anna Bligh but this is one of them.
Anna Bligh, right, on this occasion
Aurukun Shire Council on Cape York Peninsula has launched an unprecedented legal action in the Queensland Supreme Court in Cairns against the state government’s attempt to close its canteen.
The government introduced laws in July requiring councils to surrender licences and find private operators to take over the canteens.
The council has until the end of the month to find a private operator for its Three Rivers Tavern.
Today, it lodged documents in the Supreme Court saying the legislation was discriminatory and would promote sly grogging.
Ms Bligh said she was disappointed the council would spend money on legal action.
“Frankly, in my view, the Aurukun Shire Council would be much better off spending its money investing in their children and in the health and safety of their community rather than fighting an action that will close down their canteen,” she said.
“The government took action earlier this year to ensure that no local government can hold a licence to operate a permanent alcohol outlet.
“In the case of a number of Aboriginal communities, there was a very serious, we believed, conflict where councils’ income was directly related to the amount of alcohol sold.
Here in Queensland we are of course not having the same sort of intervention in our remote indigenous communities as they are in the Northern Territory but there are similar issues around substance abuse and idleness in places like Aurukun and as Bligh says there is a clear conflict of interest when a local council derives a big slab of its income from the sale of grog, if that council was really interested in the welfare of the people it is supposed to serve then it would not be wasting money trying to overturn this very sound decision of the state government.
I suppose this is even further proof of just how unscrupulous leftist lawyers are willing to support and encourage those who feather their own nests at the expense of our indigenous brothers , sisters and their children.
Cheers Comrades
8)
The Sarah Bradley sentencing style strikes again, sigh.
Of course this has happened in rural Queensland from the report in the Brisbane Times I doubt that anyone could conclude anything other than this “man” (if you can call him that) is a serial sex offender who should have been locked up for the protection of women and children in our community, but he has been set free on a bloody probation order. 🙄
Nicholas John Fitzpatrick, 18, pleaded guilty today to one count of attempted indecent treatment of a child under 16 and one count of sexual assault, as well as several motor vehicle and failure to report charges.
Brisbane’s District Court heard Fitzpatrick had a history of serious sexual assault and was previously convicted of raping a three-year-old girl in 2003.
On January 7 this year, Fitzpatrick was in a park at Kingaroy when he approached a 15-year-old girl and asked her for sex.
The girl rejected his advances but Fitzpatrick began rubbing the inside of her leg. He was arrested after the victim told her mother what had happened.
Two days later, while on bail, he was travelling on a bus from Kingaroy to Brisbane when he sexually assaulted a pregnant 17-year-old woman.
The court heard Fitzpatrick was initially sitting behind the woman on the bus, but changed to the seat beside her and began asking personal questions about her love life.
He then asked the woman to perform oral sex on him, but she refused. A short time later he grabbed her hand and put it on his crotch, before exposing himself to her.
The man’s defence barrister said Fitzpatrick had been placed in state care when he was seven years old and had lived in a number of foster homes since.
The rape conviction relates to the sexual assault of his younger foster sister.
Judge Tony Rafter sentenced Fitzpatrick to 18 months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended after today, and placed him on three years’ probation.
In handing down his decision, Judge Rafter said he took into account the 196 days Fitzpatrick had already spent in custody prior to sentencing.
As anyone can tell you, probation orders are not any bloody good when it comes to reforming those who are firmly fixed in a pattern of offending like this scrote seems to be. Despite the fact that he was probably abused as a child ect ect the primary duty of the courts has to be to protect the community and to ensure that the women and children that this scrote may come into contact with are not going to be annoyed, assaulted or raped.
Does anyone care to suggest how long it will be before he offends again?
My guess is that it will be a matter of days rather than weeks…
Angry Comrades, and disappointed that the judiciary has learned nothing from that case in Aurukun…
😡
Vegemite & Vita-brits
The future for people living in the remote indigenous communities will without doubt improve under the new regime that comes fully into effect in the new year. A combination of carrot and stick is clearly needed and this commentator really hopes that it succeeds in changing the attitudes of the indigenous people in these communities.
Indigenous parents will have their welfare payments cut if they do not send their children to school every day, protect them from abuse or destroy their public housing homes, under a new Queensland trial unveiled today.
The $96 million “Vegemite and Vitabrits” program will make the Cape York communities of Aurukun, Hopevale, Coen and Mossman Gorge accountable to a new Family Responsibilites Commission.
Parents will have their income support payments reduced if their children do not go to school every day or are neglected and left open to abuse.
Adults will also be penalised if they engage in violent behaviour or drug and alcohol abuse, or breach their tenancy agreements in public housing.
The four-year, joint federal-state government trial is a significant shift in indigenous welfare reform and has the backing of community councils in the four towns.
Announced today by Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, federal Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin and indigenous leader Noel Pearson, the program was hailed as a “back to basics” approach to rebuilding communities.
“You need just a good home, a safe home, free from drugs, free from violence, Vitabrits, Vegemite, go to school and then everything happens after that,” Mr Pearson said.
“The whole aim is to put (families) back on track, support them to take up their responsibilites once again.”
The trial will be anchored by the new Family Responsibilities Commission and could be up and running in February.
Alcohol and drug rehabilitation services will have to be set up in each of the communities to help treat adults who are identified as having serious addictions, Ms Bligh said.
Each government is committing $48 million to the initiative, which will be backed up by Queensland’s share of a $50 million package announced by the federal government at yesterday’s COAG meeting.
Ms Bligh said that money would be used as a carrot across the state’s 19 indigenous communities to encourage the enforcement of alcohol management plans.
I whole-heartedly support Noel Pearson’s vision for his people that will make it possible for indigenous children to have a future and I fully expect that some of the usual suspects will be pooh poohing this as a return to paternalism but the reality is that the situation is just too dire for the well intended, but misguided ideologues of the far left to continue to control the agenda for indigenous reform.
There is some cause for hope here comrades and at this time of the year hope and optimism are the currency of Christmas. Let’s just hope that what that currency buys something truly joyful for the children in the towns like Aurukun.
Cheers Comrades
8)
On Labor’s watch
OF course no one who has had first hand experience of the remote indigenous communities will be surprised by the revelations in today’s paper of the desolate nature of life in those places now as I expect that that my resident leftists will be keen to lay the blame at the feet of the former federal government. The reality is that the welfare of people in these places has always been a matter for the state government.
HORRIFYING details of sex abuse and child prostitution resulting from the failure of alcohol restrictions in Aboriginal communities have been hidden in State Government reports for more than two years.
Cases of neglect so bad that toddlers are forced on to the streets and children have turned to begging have been revealed in reports deliberately kept from public scrutiny.
The reports, obtained through the long process demanded by the Freedom of Information Act, show the alcohol restrictions have not curbed the widespread social breakdown that has left some children responsible for their own welfare.
The report’s litany of horrors forced Premier Anna Bligh to warn yesterday that indigenous communities faced total prohibition.
In Woorabinda, in central Queensland, the Government was told children were going “to the police or other community members to seek refuge”. In the same community, girls under the age of 16 were swapping sex for money and marijuana.
On Mornington Island there were reports of toddlers on the streets because alcohol-fuelled violence had moved from pubs into homes.
Clearly the “alcohol Management plans” have been a total failure and although the Ganga has been a contributor to the bad situation it is the grog that is the big problem and I personally can’t see anything short of as total prohibition doing anything substantial towards changing the lives of the vulnerable in these communities. A Judiciary that is willing to actually deliver justice and make sure that the miscreants understand that certain behaviours will not be tolerated, would go a long way towards making the future brighter for the likes of the children in the pictures that I have put into this post. When it comes down to the wire we must address the problems of the present and the future is what we should be looking too, sadly too many on the left are mired in the past and they ignore the effect that their obsessions have had on the very people they claim to champion.
Until next time comrades
8)
It is not as if she* did not know what the community expected…
Harriet Pootchemunka, whose Community Justice Group briefed Judge Bradley on their desire for a tough stance on crime.
Photo: Paul HarrisSARAH Bradley, the district judge who shocked the nation when she declined to jail nine males found guilty of raping a 10-year-old girl, had been extensively briefed by prominent Aurukun community members on their desire for tough measures to deal with the culture of violence in their township.
Fairfax Media has been told that members of the Aurukun Justice Group — a state-funded community law-and-order consultative body — told the judge of the terrible problems that had beset the tiny Cape York community, including rampant teenage sexual promiscuity and high rates of serious juvenile crime.
Janine Chevathun, an Aurukun councillor and member of the justice group, said the committee had taken Judge Bradley out on the community boat and explained to her over several hours the levels of social dysfunction and alcohol-related crime tearing the community apart.
“I don’t wish to blacken her name, but she was told what the problems were,” Ms Chevathun said. “We cannot understand her decision. It has mystified and deeply disappointed us. We want her to come here and explain why she ignored our group. We believed she was a good woman.”
The most rabid leftards must be really concerned that their long held paternalism is becoming so obviously on the nose , not only in the cities of Australia but also on the ground in places like the scene of the crime, Aurukun.
The is no doubt that Leftards Like Sarah Bradley have the blood of indigenous children on their hands and so do the ones who try to hide the evil of their ideology by reviving issues of the past instead of addressing the problems of the present.
Until next time Comrades
8)
* Sarah Bradley
My bold
MM I’ll address your points in turn
Madd McColl thinks that he has written a killer post but it really is just more leftist ranting and attempts to drag the debate about the Aurukun affair onto his preferred turf. That is a very handy way of avoiding having to answer the hard questions about the way forward for our indigenous brothers and sisters in the here and now though.
All of the quotes come from his “Killer Post” as cited above
For the past two days I’ve been over at Iain Hall’s 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, so I’m continuing here. I’ll warn you that due to the complexity of this debate this will be a long post, but it’s necessary. People like Iain (and his mentor Andrew Bolt) believe you can summarise this issue in a few catchy paragraphs and this is the problem.
The problem for MM is that my post that he cites above was not actually about the “Stolen Generation” at all. It was one of a series of posts that is actually about the scandal of Judge Sarah Bradley’s woefully inadequate sentences in relation to the gang rape of a ten year old girl in Aurukun.
He starts by attacking me for not giving him the source of my historical quotes, apparently this amounts to a “win” in Iain’s eyes:{…}But the truth is, I’d previously already given Iain the link, not that this mattered, because it doesn’t appear that Iain actually reads the primary sources when he is shown them anyway:
MM is still lacking the good grace to admit his error I see Ho hum…
‘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’(lain)
Well that’s certainly news to me. The dossier to which I linked contains documents of the removal process from around 1910 up to the Post War period:[..] 1911[…]1919. […]1919.[…]1937.[…]1950. […]1949[…]So you see, Iain clearly hasn’t bothered to read any of this material in spite of being given it. I assert here that all Iain has done is steal his arguments from Andrew Bolt instead of forming his own opinion from the evidence available. This is a classic case of conservative group think.
Oh Lord! Forgive me because I am such a sinner!
I initially read the dossier in 2006 and after MM’s whining I gave it another quick read through (a skim actually). Now I did this for the simple reason that The stolen generation was NOT the topic of my post and I was trying to be courteous to him by considering what he had very belatedly referenced, he should have noticed that I qualified my suggestion that nothing in the dossier was about events after 1910 by saying ” after 1910 say“ in any case it does not make much difference to the scant nature of Manne’s “evidence”.
And precisely because Iain is in its grip he continues to slip up:
‘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?’ (lain)
Well I can only deduce that MM is trying to argue that life in these camps was some kind of lovely rural idyll then
‘How ever this was not sufficient for Gunner to win his court action now was it MM?’ (lain)
He did not win though did he?
‘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’ (lain)
It is worth noting that you can’t name them either MM
Three of the above quotes are Bolt’s key arguments and Iain merely repeats them like a parrot with no knowledge of their truth whatsoever. He also parrots another of Bolt’s arguments, which I’ll address later, but for now I’ll demonstrate the man’s ignorance of the issue.
Just because Andrew makes similar arguments to me on this issue does not mean that my opinions are derived from his views on this matter and in fact MM entirely ignores my suggestions that the ins and outs off the issue of the “stolen generation” are absolutely moot when it comes to the ACTUAL topic of my most recent posts.
On comment one, the fact is that the documents hardly ever refer to neglected or abused children. To read Bolt you would be forgiven for thinking this were so but let’s say he has a penchant for repeating the same 5 or so cases of actual abused kiddies to throw doubt on the stories of thousands. But in total, actual reports of abused or neglected children are rare, in fact, there are many comments on the love these kids received:
Really how can there be thousands of documented cases when the best that Manne could come up with only 230??? Even they were very vague and unable to be connected to actual individuals. As I suggested in the second comment to this thread we have to look at the child welfare paradigm of the time of the incidents so gleefully cited by MM. He makes the fundamental error of considering the events of the past with a 21st century sensibility, and as such he is bound to misunderstand both the documents he repeatedly cites and the actions and thoughts of the people who wrote them.
To argue as Iain does (repeating Bolt) that the N.T test case of Gunner/Cubillo proves that there was no policy is highly misleading. If one cares to read the judgement it is clear that Judge O’Loughlin threw the case out on a bunch of legal grounds.
Sadly for MM the problem with his argument is that I did not make the case that he claims above at all The entirety of my mention of the Gunner/Cubillo case was to suggest that the “evidence” was not strong enough for them to win , after MM had cited it in a comment at my blog.
Often the mothers who accepted these terms never saw their children again even though they were assured they would. But in gaining her acceptance O’Loughlin had no choice but to find in the Commonwealth’s favour. So arguing that this case disproves the “Stolen Generation” is a short cut to denial, but far from true.
Once again MM is tripped up by a lack of any comprehension of the prevailing paradigm that informed the removal of white children at the time as well. The basis of MM’s rancour about these events is that indigenous children were removed BECAUSE of their ethnicity, it requires that there was an exceptionalism in their treatment. This inquiry (a PDF FILE) clearly demonstrates that there was nothing exceptional about the removal of indigenous children because white children were often removed just as capriciously.
As shown above Iain tries at least once to think for himself on this issue and makes the claim that the intentions of those behind removals will never be known. Unfortunately for Iain he shouldn’t have bothered as the documents time and again prove him wrong:
How many times is MM going to try to buy dinner on these century old letters? The fact that he keeps reiterating the same quotes, over and over suggests to me that the evidence is very thin indeed. This from someone (Manne) who, according to MM. has spent vast amounts of time perusing the contents of the national archives. I am willing to bet that reports pertaining to the removal of poor white children would exhibit the same tendencies to eugenic ideas that he sees as evidence of villainy when it comes to indigenous children and once again that would undermine his claims of exceptionalism.
Poor Iain is the victim of misinformation. Furthermore, he is the victim of conservative group think, a malady he is eager to maintain. Not only are intentions clear, but it is obvious that a policy of “half-caste” removal was being carried out.
If any one is a victim of misinformation it is MM. He has accepted, as a job lot, with all of the other Marxist inspired rhetoric about indigenous people in this country all of the dogma about the “stolen generation”.
Last, but not least, Iain has vigorously argued another of Bolt’s positions, that is that cases of abuse in Aboriginal communities today whereby welfare workers refrain from removing abused children because of sensitivities over the SG prove that people like myself have blood on their hands due to arguing our case. So it is claimed that we should shut up and start denying along side them lest we cause more pain:
OMG “sensitivities”?????????? What about the sensitivities of the children who have been sacrificed on the altar of these leftist sensitivities? Now if the left, in general, were to work from the same ethical basis as say the medical profession then they would realise that the primary edict of the Hippocratic oath is “firstly do NO harm” You can argue the toss about why people did what ever in the past but when your world view causes harm as it undeniably has on this occasion you just have to step up and take responsibility for the evil that has flowed from your intellectual position. In any case the protagonists at the centre of this scandal have admitted that “stolen generation” concerns have informed their decisions and those admissions make a criticism of that particular mindset almost mandatory when looking at the case in question.
The ridiculousness of this is obvious. I’m just as aggrieved by the fact that these welfare workers have not correctly done their duty as Iain is, but I won’t use child abuse as a moral bludgeon to win a debate about the veracity of the Stolen Generation. Quite frankly I think this tactic is repugnant. Unable to defeat the mountain of evidence I threw at him this is his only response. He fails to address the proof, fails to tackle the arguments and subsequently loses the debate, but he attempts to snatch the moral highground by claiming it’s MY fault children are left in such circumstances. How can an episode in history be debunked because a child is let down today? It can’t, this is self evident. This is just another desperate attempt at guilting the people into denial, and it’s disgusting.
I would suggest that there is just about NO evidence that MM has much concern for the suffering of contemporary indigenous children. The evidence is clear that his precious beliefs about the stolen generation are of far greater importance that the abuse of children in the here and now.
So what do we now know about Hall when it comes to this issue? He is the victim of conservative group think (willingly so). He refuses to do any independent research before forming an opinion. He prefers his opinions to be made for him over at Bolt’s place and merely regurgitates them at his own and he’s willing to take advantage of abused children to win debates in the culture war.
Bravo Iain, bravo.
Iain Hall's SANDPIT 