The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A testimony of injustice > Comments

A testimony of injustice : Comments

By Stephen Hagan, published 31/1/2007

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has failed dismally in his handling of the Mulrunji controversy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
To Oliver and interested others,

In Queensland The 1897 Protection and Sale of Opium Act was passed.

• Long title : An Act to make Provision for the Better Protection and Care of the Aboriginal and Half-Caste Inhabitants of the Colony, and to make more Effectual Provision for Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Opium (Queensland Act No. 17 of 1897)

This was strengthened by Amendment Acts in 1899, 1901, 1928, 1934, 1939 and 1946. Then, in 1965 and 1971, new Protection Acts were passed which were also closely moulded on the original 1897 legislation. Although presented at the time as a charitable, humane and philanthropic measure, the 1897 Act in its practical outcome was oppressive and restricted the freedom of Aboriginal people more effectively than the sale of opium.

These were the same laws that were applied to regulating and controlling Aboriginal people living on Palm Island as well as a multitude of othe ‘Aboriginal reserves’

When I was born my birth details were registered with relevant controlling authorities. The Acts allowed the “Chief Protector of Aboriginals” and local Protectors to control the lives of Aboriginal people including who they could marry, where they could work and, if they received their wages, how they could spend their money.

These same acts preceded and inspired the framework for aparthied laws in South Africa.

Sources

Evans, Raymond, Kay Saunders and Kathryn Cronin, Race Relations in Colonial Queensland: A History of Exclusion, Exploitation and Extermination, University of Queensland Press (Second edition) Brisbane, 1988.

Kidd, Rosalind, The Way We Civilise: Aboriginal Affairs – The Untold Story, University of Queensland Press, St Lucia, 1997.

Loos, Noel, Invasion and Resistance: Aboriginal-European Relations on the North Queensland Frontier, 1861–1897, Australian National University Press, Canberra, 1982.

See this chronology: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/bth/laws/wa.html
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 4 February 2007 11:44:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spider,
you say that "These threats [by certain Aboriginal people] are printed by the media many times".

Similar threats by non-Aboriginal people do not seem to get the same media coverage. Probably because they are made more furtively.

The police union official did not hesitate though to threaten to withdraw police from select areas - spitting the dummy and taking his bat an ball and going home because he doesn't agree with the umpire. What a sook.

Threats are words - but actions are different.

Tell me have you looked into the foundation heading the push for justice in Mulrunji's death? It has an interesting history.

The police union continues to threaten a variety of actions if they don't get their own way.

What I would like to understand is what they are objecting to. If a member of their union is charged, good on them for insisting on 'innocent until proven guilty'.

But they seem to be objecting to their member facing charges over a very suspicious death in custody.

Are they suggesting that their members are above the law?

In this, I think that the police union is way out of line and it is terrifying to see the large numbers of them that seem to think that they should not be called to account for their actions.

What is Queensland? A police state?

What if their member is found to be guilty?

What dummy spit are these 'law enforcement officers' going to do?

Chuck another little tanty?
Posted by Aka, Sunday, 4 February 2007 12:05:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainer,

Thank you. I did not know about these matters. Suspect, many city people would be equally ignorant.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 4 February 2007 3:35:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,

Thank you. I did not know about these matters. Suspect, many city people would be equally ignorant.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 4 February 2007 3:35:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka,

"But they seem to be objecting to their member facing charges over a very suspicious death in custody.

Are they suggesting that their members are above the law?

In this, I think that the police union is way out of line and it is terrifying to see the large numbers of them that seem to think that they should not be called to account for their actions."

Face it. If he wasn't a huge white police officer and DPP decided not to pursue the charges he wouldn't be facing charges. Because he is a police officer surrounded by a lynch mob mentality he has to endure a criminal trial. The police union are outraged that he is treated differently to other Australians.

I also suspect that if he wasn't a police officer the coroner wouldn't have rejected the testimony of liaison officer Bangaroo and accepted some of the testimony of the guy who was there for bashing up women.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 7 February 2007 3:12:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the 20/2/04 there was another death in custody, reported by the Australian news paper, which the Coroner, Mr Barns, released his report on 13/2/ 2007 but on this occasion the death occurred before the Police officers had even removed the victim from the residence where they allegedly lawfully located him. The Coroner was very careful in his report to identify the fact that they had the authority to enter the residence with the consent of the person, Mr Winduss, who they spoke to when the coroner wrote the following in his report. ( In an interview with police the next day Mr Winduss agreed that he consented to the officers entering the unit. In evidence at the inquest he retracted this version.) Its questionable whether the Police were authorised to enter the residence as they were not at any time advised by Mr Winduss that Mr Eddy was in the unit, without a warrant, a reasonable suspicion does not make the entry lawful as the alleged offence was in relation to an alleged traffic infringement and not a criminal offence. Evidence was given that Mr Winduss had been non-responsive and inconsistent when the Police spoke to him but they did make sure that when questioning him the next day they got him to ADMIT in RECORDED conversation that he CONSENTED to the entry. Then we have the following statement by the Coroner ( The officers understandably suspected that Mr Eddy might be in the room and repeatedly banged on it and called for him to open the door which was locked from the inside. No response was forth-coming. ) I am very disappointed with this statement by the Coroner as there is no mention of any evidence to support this ALLEGATION and therefore the entry into the bedroom by kicking open the door while being armed was a serious criminal offence. I am but a mere peasant and I find the Coroners findings very difficult to accept due to the High Court authority in Plenty V Dillon. There is a systemic problem but not only with the Police.
Posted by Young Dan, Wednesday, 14 February 2007 2:02:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy