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 > Bringing them home > Comments

Bringing them home : Comments

By Harry Throssell, published 12/6/2007

Prime ministerial hopeful, Kevin Rudd, says he will say Sorry if elected. Why not say it now?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I didn't know Howard's first name was Reynard.

WRE thinks exactly the same. There are no "legal ramifications" to saying SORRY. This is the sort of fear engendered by failed lawyers like Howard and "people with legal background". They have no idea except some vague legal, white idea.

If you knew anything about Aboriginal history and culture you would know that saying sorry allows both parties to move on. It stems from pioneer days when whites and blacks actually did say this dreaded word, sorry, and it was accepted. As a comparison it's essentially the same as a Catholic confessing his/her sins and being forgiven. Bad comparison but the idea is the same.

When are you bigots going to understand the indigenous people don't think like greedy white people do?

Another here asks what is the difference between "sorry" and "deeply regret" is. sSmple. The word SORRY is signifacant in the aboriginal culture and deeply regret is not. Howard knows that. That's why he says one and not the other.

As to bankrupting the nation, what fool actually believes this?

As an example do any of you know of the massacre, genocide, of aboriginals in Tasmania? I'm sure you do. It's fact, acknowledged by all and yet there has been no legal claim for "compo" in the years since.

Stop thinking like Howard and think like a human being. Say sorry and we can all move on. Before you other failed lawyers start bleating about land claims etc do read up on it. Totally different issues. Do you know what the saying sorry is actually for? What piece of our history does it relate to. I bet none of you actually know.

I'm white by the way but not proud of it on this issue.
Posted by DavoP, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 4:06:04 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
Any Leader of this country without the balls to say sorry on behalf of our nation is Gutless.

No one denies that Aborigines have endured countless horrors for hundreds of bloody years. These are the facts. Look up the mile creek massacre, close to where i grew up, and look at how some towns in Northern NSW completely eradicated systematically their aboriginal people, eg Bingara and Warialda. It is nothing short of disgraceful.

The fact is is that sorry is just a word. To me and realistically to most, deep regret and sorry is all the same and saying the word 'sorry' will not open pandoras box of outcomes.

The fact that John Howard knows how important this word is to both admit to our actions and apologise for disgraceful government policies as a nation, and to the generations of people that have been ruined and abused, and yet wont give them the satisfaction of hearing it, is absolutely disgusting and to the point where he almost must be proud of it. (can you give any other reason why he would not take on the chin that Aboriginals were mistreated and apologise)

For crying out loud, it may not have been the current Australians who committed many of these acts, but have some Guts (which as Australians we pride ourselves on) and provide some satisfaction to a dessimated people.

Apologies realistically can be empty and can be said with ease, but in this case the more it means to hear it both symbolically and for the benefit of a peoples, the less likely Howard is to say it. Well good on him, it is to his peril and if Rudd on the day he is appointed PM holds a conference and provides a moving speech to the nation and to the aboriginal people, he will start off on the best possible footing.
Posted by Realist, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 4:13:35 PM
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
Saying "sorry" is not going to solve present problems. Our present PM has recognised that fact and, rightly, endeavoured to concentrate on that and do something about it. Others are living in the past, some in the hope of "compensation", others because it suits their political purposes.
Let's face it saying "sorry" is about politics it is not about being sorry. Personally I would far rather have Howard saying he "deeply regrets" and meaning it (which I believe he personally does) than Rudd saying "sorry" because it suits his political purpose (which, if he does it, is why he will do it).
As one correspondent has already pointed out - the Hawke-Keating era was a chance to do much and nothing was done but no blame has been attached. Howard has repeatedly expressed his personal view (as have others in his government) and been given no credit at all.
That's my quota for the day so now you can all give me a hard time - which some rabid Labor supporters no doubt will.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 5:08:18 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
Is saying "sorry to hear that your mother died" an expression of empathy or does it make you somehow culpable in her death?

Better be careful what we say from now on.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 2:11:59 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
DAVO: John Howard must be a failure-he only became Prime Minister after all. For further reference I’ve included a couple of sources for your perusal- they were provided by other ‘failed lawyers’ called ‘judges’ who obviously have no idea what they’re talking about either.

For starters you can read the judgment of the court in J.W.R. v. Canada (Attorney General) [2000] Manitoba Judgment No. 250. This matter has close parallels to the stolen generation, in that it was alleged that the government at the time sanctioned the churches role in the removal of children from their homes and turned a blind eye to subsequent abuse. The government was thus held ‘vicariously liable’ (look it up) for the churches breach of duty. The court relied heavily on admissions of guilt (ie official apologies) by the Canadian government.

Secondly you will note that in 1998 former Canadian Indian affairs minister Jane Stewart offered a “statement of reconciliation”. In the direct wake of that statement courts approved a class action settlement. More than 80,000 people in total are entitled to benefits. The settlement includes a “common experience” average payment of $24,000 (that’s over $2 billion AUD in damages alone). As a result of the deal, it’s expected the Canadian government will fork over as much as $5 billion in restitution. [See full article: http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2006/12/15/2807222.html]

FRANK: I (and I suspect the majority of Australians) resent being labelled a closet racist for merely pointing out that the indigenous people of Australia have had relatively good opportunities to improve their lot over the past few decades. I do not accept that it is invalid to point out that many indigenous groups around the world were treated worse for longer but have rebounded better. Both of these points merely serve to illustrate that the indigenous communities in Australia have been plagued by poor leadership, a corrupt ATSIC which squandered billions and shocking government policy during the Hawke/Keating years which only encouraged greater dependency on the system.
Posted by wre, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 11:51:13 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
Wre

There are important parallels between Australia and Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples. In 1999, Canadian commentator Patricia Bedwell said: “The abuse of children was so widespread, that it has formed part of Canada's general history. [The compensation costs will be heavy] but the cost in human life, in human suffering - is beyond any words that I can write.” (http://www.ptla.org/wabanaki/Webshu.htm

In 2005, Canadian Justice Minister Cotter called the decision to house young native Canadians in church-run residential schools "the single most harmful, disgraceful and racist act in our history."

The difference between the Canadian and the Australian Governments is that the Canadians are resolved to make amends. In 2006 the Government set aside C$1.9 billion for compensation and the Deputy PM predicted it "…will be a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian school legacy." Time will tell whether this will be a significant component of ‘the best opportunity to rebound’ (your words).

No one is alleging that the compensation payments will cause serious financial problems for Canada’s economy. Nor is there any political party claiming the payments are not justified. Why do you use the pejorative term ‘fork over’ in respect of compensation funds legally won?

Everyone acknowledges that an apology and $ compensation will be just a start towards reconciliation - other measures are in train too - but at least the Canadians have made that start.

I have already said ‘sorry’ to you for my passionate language. But you continue to demonstrate your mean-spirited values with unfounded allegations that Indigenous Australians have only themselves to blame for what you call ‘awful things’ that happened to them – and would have been somehow worse off under other foreigners. However, I notice that in your continuing search for rationalisations you now include the villainous ALP.

You claim that “many indigenous groups around the world were treated worse for longer but have rebounded better”. Maybe you could produce the evidence and a proper analysis of causes rather than merely blaming the victims for the ‘awful things’ that happened to them?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 13 June 2007 4:06:46 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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