PDA

View Full Version : Who should be sorry?



Aaron Guthrie
13-02-2008, 02:37 PM
I find the interpretation of the apology as an apology of the individuals of the nation odd. That a nation would be something aside from the individuals is odd too, however.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-02-2008, 02:41 PM
What about an option "no one"?

Aaron Guthrie
13-02-2008, 02:42 PM
What about an option "no one"?I thought I covered that by "If anyone should be sorry...". And I am not sure how, if anyone should be sorry, no one should be sorry makes much sense.

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 04:12 PM
I thought I covered that by "If anyone should be sorry...". And I am not sure how, if anyone should be sorry, no one should be sorry makes much sense.
Well, since all the most vocal members of the Stolen Generation lobby were NOT stolen, why should anyone be sorry to them?

It's also questionable why FOBs or first generation Australians should be sorry for something that neither them or their ancestors were responsible for.

Aaron Guthrie
13-02-2008, 04:17 PM
Well, since all the most vocal members of the Stolen Generation lobby were NOT stolen, why should anyone be sorry to them?Since that doesn't actually address my quote, why should I respond to your question?

Aaron Guthrie
13-02-2008, 04:30 PM
I thought I covered that by "If anyone should be sorry...". And I am not sure how, if anyone should be sorry, no one should be sorry makes much sense.Well if you are a hard nosed classicalist, I guess you might claim that this is a case of p->~p being true because ~p is true (and vice versa). Of course if this was your route, ticking all options would be the way to go (maybe I should have added "contradiction" as an option).

TheJoker
13-02-2008, 04:37 PM
Well, since all the most vocal members of the Stolen Generation lobby were NOT stolen, why should anyone be sorry to them?

It's also questionable why FOBs or first generation Australians should be sorry for something that neither them or their ancestors were responsible for.

Jono FOB is generally used as derogatory remark, perhaps you could use a more appropriate term in future (unless of course your intent is to offend).

Oepty
13-02-2008, 05:09 PM
I think will all should be sorry it happened in the sense that we should not be happy that it happened. Things like taking babies, tell mothers they had died then bringing up the child to believe their mother had died is inexcusable.
As far as saying sorry as an apology it is only those responsible that can in anyway apologise. If I apology for something I have not done, instead of the person who has done it, it means absolutely nothing in bring reconcliliation between the two parties. Patrick Dodson at the national press club today called on the people directly involved to look in their hearts and seek forgiveness for there actions. It is these people who need to apologise and seek forgiveness not Kevin Rudd.
Scott

Basil
13-02-2008, 05:27 PM
I think will all should be sorry it happened in the sense that we should not be happy that it happened.
In the sense of expressing 'deep regret'? :eek:

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 05:30 PM
Jono FOB is generally used as derogatory remark, perhaps you could use a more appropriate term in future (unless of course your intent is to offend).
Joker, I learned the expression only today — from one of them! You should have known that since you contributed to the thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=183221#post183221). How should I know that it is usually derogatory (if you're right)?

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 05:45 PM
The sorry we needed (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/vid_moore)
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, February 13, 08 (04:22 pm)


David Moore (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23203981-7583,00.html), who was chief of staff to then Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mal Brough, on the apology we really needed:


The sorry debate has been hijacked by a misunderstanding of the sources of present dysfunction in Aboriginal Australia.

It's been hijacked by those who want to salve their consciences but who can't stomach the hard decisions that have to be taken.

Most remote Aboriginal dysfunction has absolutely nothing to do with the Stolen Generations and Ronald Wilson's Bringing Them Home report. Although some of those people have been wounded, it's not the basis of wider dysfunction.

It's easy to apologise for what someone else did. And to tut-tut about failures of the past. But the problems a 10-year-old raped child in Aurukun is facing today were not created by the policies of removal in the early 20th century: they were fertilised in failures of the present generation and those who lead us.

...

The people who should be apologising are those who during the past 40 years presided over deeply flawed indigenous affairs policies that created separatism, nepotism, welfarism and isolationism: dysfunction and despair; the wide-scale abuse and neglect of Aboriginal children and the poorer health outcomes of Aboriginal people in general.

The apology should be from the Government, because it still has people who want to return to the failures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and some who participated in the politics of nepotism. It should be from the Howard government: after all, it persisted with those failed policies for much of its time in office as a political holding strategy because it was afraid, until its last year or so, to really do something.

It should be from the Keating and Hawke governments, which fostered and cultured the policies of separatism and gave real succour to the Aboriginal industry by building ATSIC into the monster it became. And it did so not because it didn’t know this caused problems, it did it because it didn’t want to face the political challenge that really tackling Aboriginal poverty would create in its own ranks.

Every premier in every state and every indigenous affairs minister for the past 40 years should apologise for failing to provide the safety and the education that Aboriginal children deserved.

Every education minister who turned a blind eye to the appalling absenteeism of Aboriginal children should apologise for not treating those children with the same respect as white children by not enforcing the same rules.

The Whitlam and the Fraser governments, which championed policies that were never going to work (and in some cases still do), should apologise. While they railed, rightly, against an apartheid system in South Africa, they created one in Australia. Instead of moralising and commentating, they should face up to their share of the responsibility.

Leaders of ATSIC — every living former commissioner — who entrenched these dysfunctions, who cut funding for women’s programs and presided over a men’s rights agenda, should apologise. All the so-called leaders. They share responsibility. It would make it a genuine act of reconciliation if black leaders stood side by side with white leaders and they all apologised together for failing their people.

And which reporter dared today to ask Malcolm Fraser, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating — all of whom emoted at the sorry ceremony — this question: If stealing Aboriginal children was so obvious, so common, so disastrous and so racist, why did you not apologise for it long, long ago?

And to Whitlam this further question: Kevin Rudd says our child-stealing policies were still applied in the 1970s. Why didn’t you notice and stop them? Are you a racist?

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2008, 09:26 PM
Most remote Aboriginal dysfunction has absolutely nothing to do with the Stolen Generations and Ronald Wilson's Bringing Them Home report.

Earth to Brendan Nelson, are you listening? :rolleyes:

TheJoker
13-02-2008, 10:14 PM
Joker, I learned the expression only today — from one of them! You should have known that since you contributed to the thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=183221#post183221). How should I know that it is usually derogatory (if you're right)?

I didn't expect that you did, that's why I pointed it out.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=F.O.B.

TheJoker
13-02-2008, 10:36 PM
[B]
David Moore (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23203981-7583,00.html), who was chief of staff to then Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mal Brough, on the apology we really needed:

[INDENT]The sorry debate has been hijacked by a misunderstanding of the sources of present dysfunction in Aboriginal Australia.

It's been hijacked by those who want to salve their consciences but who can't stomach the hard decisions that have to be taken.

Most remote Aboriginal dysfunction has absolutely nothing to do with the Stolen Generations and Ronald Wilson's Bringing Them Home report. Although some of those people have been wounded, it's not the basis of wider dysfunction.

It's easy to apologise for what someone else did. And to tut-tut about failures of the past. But the problems a 10-year-old raped child in Aurukun is facing today were not created by the policies of removal in the early 20th century: they were fertilised in failures of the present generation and those who lead us.

...

The people who should be apologising are those who during the past 40 years presided over deeply flawed indigenous affairs policies that created separatism, nepotism, welfarism and isolationism: dysfunction and despair; the wide-scale abuse and neglect of Aboriginal children and the poorer health outcomes of Aboriginal people in general.

The apology should be from the Government, because it still has people who want to return to the failures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and some who participated in the politics of nepotism. It should be from the Howard government: after all, it persisted with those failed policies for much of its time in office as a political holding strategy because it was afraid, until its last year or so, to really do something.

It should be from the Keating and Hawke governments, which fostered and cultured the policies of separatism and gave real succour to the Aboriginal industry by building ATSIC into the monster it became. And it did so not because it didn’t know this caused problems, it did it because it didn’t want to face the political challenge that really tackling Aboriginal poverty would create in its own ranks.

Every premier in every state and every indigenous affairs minister for the past 40 years should apologise for failing to provide the safety and the education that Aboriginal children deserved.

Every education minister who turned a blind eye to the appalling absenteeism of Aboriginal children should apologise for not treating those children with the same respect as white children by not enforcing the same rules.

The Whitlam and the Fraser governments, which championed policies that were never going to work (and in some cases still do), should apologise. While they railed, rightly, against an apartheid system in South Africa, they created one in Australia. Instead of moralising and commentating, they should face up to their share of the responsibility.

Leaders of ATSIC — every living former commissioner — who entrenched these dysfunctions, who cut funding for women’s programs and presided over a men’s rights agenda, should apologise. All the so-called leaders. They share responsibility. It would make it a genuine act of reconciliation if black leaders stood side by side with white leaders and they all apologised together for failing their people.

And which reporter dared today to ask Malcolm Fraser, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating — all of whom emoted at the sorry ceremony — this question: If stealing Aboriginal children was so obvious, so common, so disastrous and so racist, why did you not apologise for it long, long ago?



Jono I agree with what David Moore has to say. There is no doubt that ATSIC was rife with corruption, I saw some of the results first-hand. But I do believe it was originally set-up in good faith by the governement to allow some form of self determination for the aboriginal people in managing their own affairs.

We must also remember this is politics, and in politics it is never good policy to openly admit your own failures.

And we should all remind ourselves that the integration of aboriginal and european culture is still in its infancy (less than 5 generations) you've got to expect problems going from a hunter gather culture to a western civilisation in such a short space of time. And there is hardly any road map to follow in terms of effective policy.

Best we can do is keep searching for new ideas and informed opinions.

pax
13-02-2008, 10:44 PM
Jono FOB is generally used as derogatory remark, perhaps you could use a more appropriate term in future (unless of course your intent is to offend).
Isn't that always Jono's intent :rolleyes:

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 12:07 AM
Isn't that always Jono's intent :rolleyes:
Go back and read the other thread and see who introduced the term—one of the "FOBs", and one who has an impeccable reputation in the chess world. Someone else beat me to asking what it meant. But typical of lefties to see malice where none is intended; Hannah Arendt suggested that the great achievement of the leftist totalitarians was to turn questions of fact into questions of motive.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 12:09 AM
I didn't expect that you did, that's why I pointed it out.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=F.O.B.
Well I know now, so thanx.

Spiny Norman
14-02-2008, 09:08 AM
In my day-to-day work I occasionally have contact with Aboriginal people in places like the Northern Territory, outback QLD, and so on.

One recent case that stuck in my mind was a girl who was sexually abused over many years in a remote community. She was one of about 6 or 7 girls, all of whom were degraded in the most vile ways ... all of them, except her, have subsequently committed suicide.

Her abusers were mostly other aboriginal folk. Why her parents and other community leaders were unable to protect her I don't know. But I am wondering whether leaders of some of these Aboriginal communities are also going to say "Sorry" to those of their own people whom they so terribly abused.

This whole "stolen generations" issue is exceedingly complex, that I do know. Just saying "Sorry" is not enough. Restitution must be made for genuine wrongs committed. Without that, its hollow ... and I fear that the apology might end up doing more harm than good if its not followed up properly. Rudd and Nelson are kidding themselves if they think they can avoid the compensation issue.

****************

On the personal front, I recently wrote myself a list of personal accountabilities. One of them reads as follows:


9. I will apologise and make restitution to those I have harmed, but I will not say “sorry” for things I have not done, nor will I cover up, over-analyse or take personal responsibility for the shortcomings of others

MichaelBaron
14-02-2008, 09:56 AM
But I am wondering whether leaders of some of these Aboriginal communities are also going to say "Sorry" to those of their own people whom they so terribly abused.

[/INDENT][/I]


This is an exellent point:clap: As of today, there is no abuse coming from the Government (unless you call not giving even more money towards aboriginal communities an abuse). However, corruption, crime and misappropriation of funds are common in the Aboriginal communities!

Desmond
14-02-2008, 08:45 PM
In my day-to-day work I occasionally have contact with Aboriginal people in places like the Northern Territory, outback QLD, and so on. In what way? I thought you were in IT.


One recent case that stuck in my mind was a girl who was sexually abused over many years in a remote community. She was one of about 6 or 7 girls, all of whom were degraded in the most vile ways ... all of them, except her, have subsequently committed suicide.

Her abusers were mostly other aboriginal folk. Why her parents and other community leaders were unable to protect her I don't know. But I am wondering whether leaders of some of these Aboriginal communities are also going to say "Sorry" to those of their own people whom they so terribly abused.You know, my first reaction here is one of disgust. My second thought is that I do not understand this culture. Do I, as someone who does not understand this culture, have the right to interfere?


This whole "stolen generations" issue is exceedingly complex, that I do know. Just saying "Sorry" is not enough. I think you are mistaken. For many aboriginals, sorry was enough, and what they have waited a lifetime to hear. Our culture wronged yours, we were wrong, we are sorry, please forgive us. Not everyone is after monetary compensation.




9. I will apologise and make restitution to those I have harmed, but I will not say “sorry” for things I have not done, nor will I cover up, over-analyse or take personal responsibility for the shortcomings of othersBut your forefathers did it. Are you so different from them? In their situation, you would have done the same thing.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-02-2008, 09:11 PM
You know, my first reaction here is one of disgust. My second thought is that I do not understand this culture. Do I, as someone who does not understand this culture, have the right to interfere?


If the law is uniformly applicable to everyone without regards to race, then yes, the government has not just the right, but an obligation to interfere.

If there is a different law that applies to aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australian, then we live in a racist country.

Desmond
14-02-2008, 09:20 PM
If the law is uniformly applicable to everyone without regards to race, then yes, the government has not just the right, but an obligation to interfere.

If there is a different law that applies to aboriginal and non-aboriginal Australian, then we live in a racist country.It is not that simple. We are not talking about two analagous crimes being committed in the Sydney CBD, one by a white and one by an Aboriginal. Something that is abuse in our society might not be abuse at all in an Aboriginal one. What do you care if Aboriginals have different cultural norms from ours and if they practice them in their own communities?

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 09:28 PM
It is not that simple. We are not talking about two analagous crimes being committed in the Sydney CBD, one by a white and one by an Aboriginal. Something that is abuse in our society might not be abuse at all in an Aboriginal one.
It is pretty likely that gang raping a child would be considered abuse in European and Aboriginal culture, but apparently not seriously so by leftist prosecution departments and judges.

Desmond
14-02-2008, 09:31 PM
It is pretty likely that gang raping a child would be considered abuse in European and Aboriginal culture, but apparently not seriously so by leftist prosecution departments and judges.Are you talking about a specific case, or just getting some practice in on a strawman?

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 09:31 PM
You know, my first reaction here is one of disgust.
That should be a reasonable guide in this case that the action was intrinsically wrong.


My second thought is that I do not understand this culture. Do I, as someone who does not understand this culture, have the right to interfere?
I think so. The Allies interfered with the Nazi culture of exterminating Jews, and put the leaders on trial even though they were obeying the laws of their own country.


I think you are mistaken. For many aboriginals, sorry was enough, and what they have waited a lifetime to hear. Our culture wronged yours, we were wrong, we are sorry, please forgive us. Not everyone is after monetary compensation.
But that was the recommendation of the fallacious Bringing Them Home agitprop. And it seems callous to say, "Yes, the government harmed you, but tough bikkies, we won't compensate you."

Desmond
14-02-2008, 09:36 PM
That should be a reasonable guide in this case that the action was intrinsically wrong.

I think so. The Allies interfered with the Nazi culture of exterminating Jews, and put the leaders on trial even though they were obeying the laws of their own country.Godwin's Law. :rolleyes:


But that was the recommendation of the fallacious Bringing Them Home agitprop. And it seems callous to say, "Yes, the government harmed you, but tough bikkies, we won't compensate you."Not as callous as knowing it but being afraid to say it, especially when just the words meant so much to so many people.

Spiny Norman
14-02-2008, 11:12 PM
In what way? I thought you were in IT.
I used to be (20+ years experience). The past 2 years I've been in a general management role.


You know, my first reaction here is one of disgust. My second thought is that I do not understand this culture. Do I, as someone who does not understand this culture, have the right to interfere?
Only you can answer that. But for me, if I know some defenceless child is being raped, pimped, assaulted and abused emotionally, then given half a chance I will act to protect that child ... and the hell with the culture the allowed the abuse to take place and covered it up ... that's not a culture worthy of my respect.


But your forefathers did it. Are you so different from them? In their situation, you would have done the same thing.
Maybe I would have. But I didn't. End of story.

Some of my forefathers were convicts who were deported from their own country of origin and horribly abused in the penal system here ... e.g. John Frost (the Chartist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frost_(Chartist)) was originally sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered, and was fortunate to have his sentence commuted.

Maybe I could have been like him. But I'm not.

Blaming a current generation for the actions of others is just plain wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2008, 11:43 PM
Godwin's Law. :rolleyes:
Even that proves my point: that we can and do judge some cultures as wrong.

And this nonsense about hiding behind culture is addressed in my post More cultural relativism that hurts Aboriginal children (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=183510&postcount=54), since two Aboriginal elders made it clear that making an 11 perform oral sex is not part of the culture. But this wasn't enough for the judge who had previously let the gang-rapists of a 10yo girl go free. Cultural relativism is a lovely idea for white leftists that hurts the women and children of the culture they ostensibly respect.


Not as callous as knowing it but being afraid to say it, especially when just the words meant so much to so many people.
Yes, assuaging white leftist guilt and making them feel morally superior.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-02-2008, 11:30 AM
It is not that simple. We are not talking about two analagous crimes being committed in the Sydney CBD, one by a white and one by an Aboriginal. Something that is abuse in our society might not be abuse at all in an Aboriginal one. What do you care if Aboriginals have different cultural norms from ours and if they practice them in their own communities?
Are you sure the Aboriginal victim of the crime shares the view of Aboriginal perpetrator?

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 11:34 AM
Are you sure the Aboriginal victim of the crime shares the view of Aboriginal perpetrator?
Similarly, would the victim of gang rape sentenced to prison and flogging by a Saudi Sharia court support the traitorous Archbishop's call for Sharia to be introduced into the UK?

TheJoker
15-02-2008, 12:15 PM
Similarly, would the victim of gang rape sentenced to prison and flogging by a Saudi Sharia court support the traitorous Archbishop's call for Sharia to be introduced into the UK?

Jono would appreciate if you could stay on topic please, or create another thread. Thanks.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 12:53 PM
Jono would appreciate if you could stay on topic please, or create another thread. Thanks.
It was on topic: part of this thread involves cultural relativism, so it is reasonable to propose counter-examples to its validity (e.g. we don't respect the antisemitic culture of Nazi Germany). And IG pointed out that it's often not kind to the weaker members of a culture, i.e. sexually abused children in this thread, so it was reasonable to point out a parallel with another current issue, Sharia Law, that oppresses women.

TheJoker
15-02-2008, 01:58 PM
It was on topic: part of this thread involves cultural relativism, so it is reasonable to propose counter-examples to its validity (e.g. we don't respect the antisemitic culture of Nazi Germany). And IG pointed out that it's often not kind to the weaker members of a culture, i.e. sexually abused children in this thread, so it was reasonable to point out a parallel with another current issue, Sharia Law, that oppresses women.

Ok here is my position, cultural differences can be accomodated within a society provided they do contraviene the laws of that society. The laws of the society can be amended to further accomodate cultural differences provided that the changes don't diminish basic human rights.

So while some ascpects of individual cultures could be accomodated within our legal system (e.g. recognition of polygamy) other practices that impinge on an individuals human rights should not be tolerated.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-02-2008, 03:46 PM
Ok here is my position, cultural differences can be accomodated within a society provided they do contraviene the laws of that society. The laws of the society can be amended to further accomodate cultural differences provided that the changes don't diminish basic human rights.

So while some ascpects of individual cultures could be accomodated within our legal system (e.g. recognition of polygamy) other practices that impinge on an individuals human rights should not be tolerated.
Agree. However, I do not think existing Australian law curtail any aspect of individual culture practice that do not impinge on an individual human right.

Even though polygamy banned by the law, nothing stops one man and few women or one woman and few men from living together and arranging the affair the way they see fit.

pax
15-02-2008, 03:51 PM
Similarly, would the victim of gang rape sentenced to prison and flogging by a Saudi Sharia court support the traitorous Archbishop's call for Sharia to be introduced into the UK?
Traitorous? Come on. Did you actually read his proposal? He was not proposing a Sharia alternative to criminal law codes.

I actually don't support his proposal, but the shock jock portrayal of the Archbishop wanting Sharia courts of the extreme Saidi kind are simply false.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-02-2008, 03:59 PM
Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong with Sharia law court, or Aboriginal law court, as long as both parties voluntary agree to abide by it's ruling.
In practice, however, I cannot imagine it's working. If someone knows his chances in Sharia (Aboriginal, etc.) court are lower then in normal court, why would (s)he agree to abide by it? It is very unlikely (even though possible) that both parties prefer alternative court.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2008, 05:16 PM
Traitorous? Come on. Did you actually read his proposal? He was not proposing a Sharia alternative to criminal law codes.
There must be one law for one nation. It might be workable the way IG suggests with consent of both parties, but the sovereignty of the law of the land must not be undermined.


I actually don't support his proposal, but the shock jock portrayal of the Archbishop wanting Sharia courts of the extreme Saidi kind are simply false.
I know, but he later confessed that he knew squat about it. He should stick to being spiritual leader of the Anglicans and defend Anglicanism within Britain, not advocate for special privileges for another religion that is not known for its tolerance.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 02:18 PM
Time magazine's worst example of a child stolen for white racist reasons while blathering to the world about 50,000 of them (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1713331,00.html):


Murray Harrison, 70, was a member of the stolen generation. One of 13 siblings, he was found in the care of his aunt, an itinerant farm worker, and put in an orphanage at age 10.

pax
18-02-2008, 02:29 PM
There must be one law for one nation. It might be workable the way IG suggests with consent of both parties, but the sovereignty of the law of the land must not be undermined.
This is basically exactly what he was proposing - a tribunal to deal with small disputes, not an alternative criminal court.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2008, 04:25 PM
This is basically exactly what he was proposing - a tribunal to deal with small disputes, not an alternative criminal court.
One must still wonder how much he knows of Sharia. You and Boris whinge at my allegedly patriarchal religion, but under Sharia, four female witnesses are worth one male. And a Sharia court in Iran acquitted the murderers of a couple for the heinous crime of holding hands, and one in Saudi Arabia sentenced the victim of gang rape to imprisonment and flogging.

MichaelBaron
18-02-2008, 04:52 PM
There is no law in Australia that stops Indigenous people to resolve their internal minor disputes informally through a legal system of their choice. However,every single Australian has to abide by Australian laws. If an Indigenous person rapes a child....should he go to prison or should elder of the tribe be asked to address the problem instead?

I am particularly entertained by the following argument in favour of giving Aboriginal people autonomy in dealing with the crimes on the basis that "Aboriginal people are getting depressed when sent to prison". So what? Does it mean that Rapists should be given suspended sentences purely because they are of Aboriginal Origin?

About two years ago, a collegue of mine returned to his car after having dinner in a restaraunt only to discover that someone was trying to open his car...So what did he do? he quickly ran to the car..and when he told the drunk bastard who was trying to get inside (he already made some scratches to the car door by then) to leave his car alone...and in return he was a) abused verbally and b) physical abuse was attempted

Luckily, my collegue was strong enough to resist the challenge so he restrained the guy and called the police. Did that drunk idiot recieve a prison sentence? No! But guess what - my colleague was queoned at the police station for 2 hours!!! because while defending himself and his property - he broke inflicted some injury on the offender (i can not remember what exactly the injury was...but i believe it was not life threatening nor he used any weapons). In court, that drunk bastard was protected by 2 lawyers (at the tax-payers expense obviously) and by some Aboriginal Rights bla bla bla Group. Most of the time..they were not talking about the crime he was trying to commit but about his hard childhood...drug addiction (it was used as an excuse!) and about "dramatic injury" imposed on him by a 55 yo university lecturer who was simply trying to defend himself and his property. Senior Lecturer in Accounting who has been working hard and contributing to our community for years was portrayed as a "violent person capable of inadequate response" (and what is inadequate about self-defence :hmm: ) and some piece of....was made feel like a hero.

Of course i am sure - woud the offender be of some other nationality..Human rights groups would still interfere... Would they?:hmm:

Desmond
18-02-2008, 07:12 PM
You and Boris whinge at my allegedly patriarchal religion, Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it. I never whinged about it at all.

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2008, 05:55 PM
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it. I never whinged about it at all.
You managed to whinge about Christianity and patriarchy (which I hope you've finally learned to spell) somehow.

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2008, 05:59 PM
John Comnenus argues on Andrew Bolt's forum, Fake sorry or fake crime (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/fake_sorry_or_fake_crime/), that Chairman Rudd’s apology is either insincere or a grossly inadequate response to the crime for which he’s apologised:


If one accepts the ‘stolen generation’ then the sorriest element of the apology is surely its logic. Stealing children to destroy a culture is genocide as the ‘Bringing them Home’ Report stated. The apologist’s implicitly accept the genocide argument but fail to respond adequately.

The logic of the apology is that our forebears were either party to, or beneficiaries of, genocide. We therefore owe the victims real justice. The minimum standard of justice required is:


Identify who perpetrated this genocide? Given that some instances were comparatively recent a criminal investigation should identify and charge any living perpetrators?

All political parties, public services and public organisations need to expunge any positive commemoration of the historic figures responsible for genocide. An inquiry should determine which historical figures were responsible for genocide. For example, Windshuttle argues, that Premier McKell was responsible for the Stolen Generation enabling legislation in NSW. The ‘McKell’ building in McKell Place is a significant NSW Govt building. If he is responsible for genocide these places should be renamed. It is cruel to the victims to honour a perpetrator of their genocide. No self respecting person wants to work in a building named after such evil. All positive commemorations of every perpetrator of genocide must be removed from any public place, building, electorate name, lecture hall, or anywhere else.

The victims deserve commemoration and significant compensation. You can’t genuinely apologise for the worst possible crime with ‘sorry’ and ‘lets move on’. The crime is too significant. A proper apology entitles victims to criminal compensation by successfully prosecuting the perpetrators.

Once the first three steps are complete we can understand how this genocide came about and learn how to ensure it never happens again.

...

The moral inconsistencies in the logic of the apology lead to a number of possible conclusions:

a. the apology isn’t genuine;

b. the apologisers knows there is no real basis for the apology;

c. the victims are incapable of seeking justice through proper courts; and

d. the victims know that they can’t prove a case beyond reasonable doubt in court.
...

Desmond
19-02-2008, 07:15 PM
You managed to whinge about Christianity and patriarchy (which I hope you've finally learned to spell) somehow.Show me one post where I whinged about Christianity because it was patriachal. You won't find one because I never did. Of course this has been pointed out to you before, but that doesn't stop you making false claims as usual, nor do I expect an admission from you that what I say is true.

Kevin Bonham
19-02-2008, 08:03 PM
The moral inconsistencies in the logic of the apology lead to a number of possible conclusions:

a. the apology isn’t genuine;

b. the apologisers knows there is no real basis for the apology;

c. the victims are incapable of seeking justice through proper courts; and

d. the victims know that they can’t prove a case beyond reasonable doubt in court.
... [/INDENT]

there's also e. nobody with great influence sees much point in prosecuting an old failed attempt at "genocide" that was undertaken with good if profoundly stupid intentions and didn't actually directly kill anyone in the process with the same zeal applied to the kinds of genocide attempt cases that actually do go to international courts.

MichaelBaron
19-02-2008, 09:24 PM
It may be an "off-topic" posting but let me post it here anyway :).

There is in article in "The Age" today about some 19 yo who bashed up his GreatGrandmother (!!!!) to get $60 off her. The lady is now in a nursing home with permanent damages. And what about the offender? Of course he is not going to prision? why not? I will let you guess why. The hint is "he belongs to a certain nationality" So off he goes to youth detention center instead :(

Adamski
19-02-2008, 09:28 PM
It may be an "off-topic" posting but let me post it here anyway :).

There is in article in "The Age" today about some 19 yo who bashed up his GreatGrandmother (!!!!) to get $60 off her. The lady is now in a nursing home with permanent damages. And what about the offender? Of course he is not going to prision? why not? I will let you guess why. The hint is "he belongs to a certain nationality" So off he goes to youth detention center instead :(
Thanks, Michael. There are far too many real stories like this one.

Basil
19-02-2008, 09:30 PM
GUNNER FOR PM!

Adamski
19-02-2008, 09:35 PM
GUNNER FOR PM!Perhaps its timely to remind you that Arsenal managed nil against Man U's 4 at the weekend - and lucky to get nil!! Go the Chelsea lads!

Capablanca-Fan
22-02-2008, 03:28 PM
Thanks, Michael. There are far too many real stories like this one.
Like this post (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=184569&postcount=164). It's notable that this attack by Aborigines on whites because they are whites is not called "racist" although that's exactly what it is.

There are similar double standards in the US. Economist Dr Walter Williams, himself black, writes in Hiding Black Interracial Crimes (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5086):


...

I don't know about you, but it was just recently that I heard about a gruesome murder in Knoxville, Tenn., that is far worse than the false charges in the Duke rape case and is at least as horrible, if not more so, than the dragging death of James Byrd. Unlike the Duke rape case and the Jasper lynching, the national news media's coverage of the interracial Knoxville murders paled in comparison. On Jan. 6, 2007, University of Tennessee student Channon Christian and her boyfriend, Christopher Newsom, were carjacked and kidnapped in Knoxville. Both of them were later murdered.

According to a 46-count indictment, suspects Darnell Cobbins, Lemaricus Davidson, George Thomas and Vanessa Coleman, all blacks, are charged with committing rape, including sodomy against Christian and Newsom, both of whom are white. After being raped, Newsom was shot several times and his body was found burned along nearby railroad tracks. Christian was forced to witness her boyfriend's rape, torture and subsequent murder before she was ultimately raped, tortured and murdered. The police discovered her body inside a large trash can in the kitchen of the home where the murders took place. Before disposing of her body, the murderers poured bleach or some other cleaning agent down her throat in an effort to destroy DNA evidence. Trial dates have been set for next May.

What have we heard from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others who rushed to judgment and outrage as they condemned whites in the cases of the "Jena 6" and Don Imus when he referred to the Rutgers ladies basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's"? Where were the national news media and public officials? You can bet the rent money that were the victims black and the perpetrators white, Knoxville would have been inundated with TV crews, with Jackson, Sharpton and other civil rights spokesmen and politicians from both parties condemning racism, possibly blaming it all on George Bush.

According to the 2004 FBI National Crime Victimization Survey, in most instances of interracial crimes, the victim is white and the perpetrator is black. In the case of interracial murder for 2004, where the race of victim and perpetrator is known, more than twice as many whites were murdered by a black than cases of a white murdering a black.

...