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 > Human rights: what are they good for? > Comments

Human rights: what are they good for? : Comments

By Jennifer Wilson, published 29/7/2009

The abused child is rendered rightless by the abuse. To be without rights is to be seen as less than human.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
this is an advance in seeing the humanity in our children and thus deserving of 'human' rights, but to take this one step further, does this apply to the unborn - and the not quite dead yet?

If it doesn't apply, then this is an exercise in hypocrisy.
Posted by SHRODE, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 12:05:40 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
An interesting piece. I remain undecided about the Bill of rights approach to human rights and that probably impacts on my thinking with this.

Whilst it's clear that abusers deny a child rights does that mean that the child does not have them or just that someone is ignoring those rights? Does defining the rights alter the attitude of abusers who already show little or no regard for the child anyway?

I don't believe that the rights of a child should be the same set as those for adults, children are not capable of taking on the same responsibilities as adults nor generally of the same decision making skills. Should an carer who restrains a child from running away on a roadway be guilty of deprivation of liberty in the same way that an adult who physically restrains an adult might well be?

Is an adult who exercises control over a childs spending, what they wear or who checks what they are viewing on the web (or the content of messages) guilt of the sort of DV which I regularly see signs about in public toilets?
Equally is an adult who fails to provide for the needs of a child in their care guilty of an offence where they might not be for an adult?

I also tend to think that the causes of abuse go beyond sex and power, adults abuse children by failing to meet their responsibilities to provide for the child for a variety of reasons. Selfishness, lazyness, lack of skills etc. Adults abuse children and others through a lack of self control, power may not be the issue, rather a tendency to lash out when emotions run high (State of Origin players citing passion in an attempt to legitimise on field violence during the closing match this year).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 12:51:52 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
I am a 44 year old woman i was sexually abused as a child, and it has followed me throughout my life, eight years ago i found out my daughter was sexually abused by the same person and when i started to question on how and why Docs ignored my concerns it was swept under the carpet. I had this man charged and because of this my family set out to use my children as scapgoats,financially, mentally,and parentally alienated me. I have got no justification for what has happened and because of this i and my 11yr old son still continue to get abused.Being denied parentally rights, my judicial rights,and my rights to be free from this has had a major impact on my life. If is passed one would hope this kind of abuse seccuss to exsist.
Posted by shattered.dreams, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 4:08:27 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
Anyone who believes that a Bill of Rights is needed in Australia had better sign up with one of the minorities because that's who it's for - at the expense of the majority.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 4:39:37 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
Sadly i note the author is female. Par 2, mentions eliminating violence towards women (1994) but not children or males. Rights of the child (1989) but not males or women.

The best Freudian slip is of course par 10, "the adults who are charged with her care".

Another Loony, Left, Lesbian, Feminazi, Paedophile bunch of psychobabble designed to waste time talking about it and blame shifting over to men, instead of protecting children from the women who abuse them daily.

Somewhere along the way meandering back and forth over this drivel she manages to forget Roger Levesque is talking about "how humans treat one another". Are women and children not human? Is that why they need different rights to other humans? Which planet do you think they are from? When will you, chazP, bobtwat, fractelle, etc, alow our children to be safe.
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 10:22:36 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
Ironic, Leigh, since you're not in the majority. Most Australians reject your views on pretty much everything, so you'd better get behind the rights movement before our evil, atheist, socialist government outlaws racism, sexism and political arguments based on demonstrable fallacies.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 10:33:40 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
Formersnag, did you read the same article that I did?
At no time did I believe that the author was in any way promoting feminism or women in general.

She was talking about considering children (both male and female children) in the Bill of Rights as having the right not to be abused.

Yes women have been known to abuse children and to be violent to men at times.However, it is a well known fact that men are usually physically stronger than the women and children in their lives, and thus often present the biggest threat during any argument involving violence.

Why on earth would you not support the legal protection of all children's rights to live in an abuse free environment?

We are talking about male children here as well you know. If children aren't subjected to abuse during their childhood, then they are far less likely to perpetrate abuses on others when they are adults.
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 29 July 2009 11:16:33 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
Sancho
My good friend who are you, which state, or profession, tell something for your self! I MEAN YOU ARE GOOD!
Posted by AnSymeonakis, Thursday, 30 July 2009 1:27:18 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
Formersnag, definately a "glass is almost empty approach". I was pleasantly surprised that the author had avoided the comments about male abuse which are almost a given in articles about child protection. The one comment you referenced could have been worded differently but in the context of the overall article it's pretty much a so what item. I've come to expect these articles to have a component of father bashing in them, the lack of it in this article gives a better opportunity to discuss the issues.

There is plenty to discuss here without yet another gender war, differing views on the concepts of rights, causes of abuse, how we change abusive behaviour, what gets defined as abuse etc.

By the way I think that you have formed a very wrong impression of Fractelle, I've exchanged comments with her over quite a long period and she is not in the same group as ChazP and Bobtwat (and a few buddies who tend to drop in on child protection arguments to display their hatred of fathers).

So what do you think of the rights based approach to child protection? Should children have the same set of rights as adults?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 30 July 2009 7:04:41 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
Robert, am with you on all of your comments regarding the article. Children are not responsible adults. There is also the equal issue of adults with acquired brain injury, geriatric dementia, and children with intellectual disability or retardation, who are now over 18. We and others could discuss at what age children transform into adults, or a sliding scale where humans are considered fully mature, below which partially so. These discussions could distract legal and social sciences academia for another 500 years. Meanwhile children continue to be abused.

My daughter achieved a very high OP score and is studying social work at QUT. She inherited my "off the charts" high IQ and good looks. Is sensible, mature and i find it extremely offensive that Feminazis should suggest that she is somehow less human than we males and "in need" of special rights, poor dear that she is barely surviving in constant fear for her life on the mean streets of Brisbane, pathetic.

Everybody deserves the right to live in safety regardless of gender, race, religion, creed, age, etc. What ever happened to the sweet simplicity of words like those in America's original constitution? (yes i know at the time of writing that women did not yet have the right to vote and wealthy Americans owned slaves, the evil men did get around to amending it) Following the logic of the article, author, feminists, we will need special rights for nonsmokers, whose rights are destroyed every time a smoker lights up, polluting the air around them, etc, etc, etc.

Bills of rights, constitutions need plain, sweet, simple, poetic, prose. So that ordinary people can understand them or whats the point? Gobbledegook like in that article confuses and diverts.

Suzeonline & Robert, again however, the article was clearly written from a feminazi perspective, male abusers were mentioned in the 1994 UN rubbish about eliminating violence towards women. The Freudian slip in par, 10 also indicates the thread in her mind while writing, the power/dis empowerment mantra
Posted by Formersnag, Friday, 31 July 2009 2:38:30 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
Formersnag, you said elsewhere that you carefully mirror your opponents (or something to that effect). In this case the author has not come out with any clear attacks on men (regardless of what you might think of feminists). The author has tried to keep the language neutral, now would be a good time to mirror. There is clearly plenty to be frustrated about the gender attacks in many of the discussions about child safety but it is also to easy to let that distract from the issue. I don't think that we need to let gender warriors set the theme for every discussion.

The rights of adults with special needs does complicate the human rights debate. In terms of this discussion though developmental norms are what I think need to consider. Generally adults are far more capable of complex decisions than children.

At a very basic level I can see some merit in the human rights approach but when I consider it in practical terms it seems to need to be so basic as to be meaningless or if more detailed then so full of exceptions that it becomes meaningless. Global statements about children having the same human rights as adults can become something other than common sense pretty quickly.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 31 July 2009 3:42:13 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
Here's a thing: I've listened to a number of wonderful podcasts FOR the bill of rights, and then listened to ONE podcast against them and was utterly surprised to find myself against them! I'm quite alarmed at what such a bill could do to this country!

EG: Some time ago I mentioned random breath testing to an American friend, and he was horrified! "What about your bill of rights, your right to privacy?" he demanded?

I was too young to answer "But what about my right to life, to not being wiped out by a drunk, to living in a society that generally speaking has less drunks because people know they can be pulled over and breath tested at any time?"

Before Australia leaps into this direction I'd LOVE you all to listen to this podcast, twice. There are some VERY interesting and unexpected opponents. EG: I would have sworn the Australian Christian Lobby would have been FOR human rights, which of course they are, but they are AGAINST a "BILL" of rights as the means by which to best guarantee them in Australia. Instead, Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM, (Ret'd) Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby said something to the effect that "Bills of rights enshrine selfishness over the rights of the community", which helped me remember my conversation with my American friend about breath testing.

Not only that, but a bill of rights can:-
* politicise the judiciary which are meant to be about interpreting law, not social policy
* promote an *absolute* formula of 'rights' as interpreted by our generation, and make them absolute for all time when 'rights' are often about social policies more appropriately held to account by the political process and democratic discussion of the day
* reflect the silly prejudices and blind spots of our day
* condense into silly summary issues that are far more complex and require weighty volumes of legal document to truly unravel
* promote selfish policy at the expense of the public good

Please, "Don't leave us with the bill!"

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2009/2596855.htm
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 31 July 2009 5:11:21 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
I certainly agree that abuse of children in any form is deplorable.Consideration of human rights of the sexually abused child should be hand in hand with the man or woman who has been falsely accused of sexual abuse. In todays world it has become easy to accuse simply to reap the benefit of the compensation that is payable by the accused or the government should the accusing party win the one sided court process. Even as a married person and raising children he or she cannot become a normal human again.Surely this person has human rights and enough to allow him and her to live a good and just life on this earth.
In Queensland we have a Government that hides it's mistakes by refusing appeals even when there is clear and precise evidence of a miscarriage of justice.A refusal is referred to the legislation that says they do not even have to give a reason.Gutless government hiding behind the cries of innocence even whilst the corruption is rampant and has been since Goss was in power.
I am not sure that a change of government will make a difference in the short term but I am sure that more Queenslanders and Australians all will support any legislation that considers both sides of the coin as opposed to the one eyed,one sided legislation that exists in this state and in most of Australia.
Sexual abuse allegations should only be considered by a panel of Judges in the District Court and never by a emotional jury that could easily be made up of persons who barely have the capacity to read or write let alone decide on the guilt or innocence of a person where emotion alone can sway a jury devoid of the capacity to decide on facts.
Both sides need Human Rights
Angryant47
Posted by Angryant 47, Monday, 3 August 2009 9:04:20 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
The implication to be drawn from the first post “does this apply to the unborn - and the not quite dead yet?

If it doesn't apply, then this is an exercise in hypocrisy.”

Is not hypocrisy at all.

The unborn, presumably not merely the “still only imagined” but the fetal, do not have rights above or in preference to the woman in whose body they are developing.

To ascribe “rights” to an “unborn” which curtailed the right of decision of a pregnant lady to obtain an abortion would be to subordinate the lady to the status of a support system for a uterus.

And such denigration of a lady would be the real hypocrisy, not the loss of an unborn.

To the matters of family abuse

Changing the jurisdiction (to some supposed Bill of Rights) will make no difference.

Abuse is a matter of attitude. Laws can only address the behaviour which stems form attitudes.

Regulating the behavior will do nothing for the attitudes.

The more I see of a lax social attitude to anti-social behavior, the more I am coming to realize:

Notions of “education” are too slow and too expensive to effectively permeate the social consciousness, regardless what the will-of-the wisps might say.

Only by making individuals personally accountable and painfully discomforted and penalized for their lapses of “attitude driven” behaviors will we ever see any serious shifts in "behavior modification" take place.

In short, if you want to fix the problem, ignore all the "extenuating circumstance" excuses and just bang the offenders up for long prison terms in correctional institutions which are there to “correct” and "punish" and not just to “pander” to the inmates.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 2:31:35 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
Sorry col rouge, but without outside intervention and assuming the woman/pregnancy are reasonably healthy then 9 months after conception a human life which began at conception moves from the womb into the outside world. The Feminists were all in favour of men who cause a miscarriage while assaulting or murdering a pregnant woman, be charged with murdering the unborn child as well. You can't have it both ways. This has already happened. Men have been charged & successfully convicted of the double murder, of both, mother and unborn child. There have also been successful convictions for both the assault on the mother & murder of the unborn child.

People have been talking about our aging population causing a huge economic problem for more than a decade, with not enough young working taxpayers to afford all the retirees. At what age do we decide that human beings become an inconvenience? Should we exterminate the women or the men? The extremists or the majority conformists?

Feminists are also against an unwilling father being able to force a woman pregnant with his child to have an abortion. Ditto on him being forced to pay child support for a human life he did not want to be responsible for.

Why can't men have the right to kill people they find inconvenient?

The rest of your post is excellent. I agree wholeheartedly that feminism is extremely antisocial and all of them should be punished for their crimes ASAP.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 4 August 2009 5:39:03 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
Robert, Once upon a time, long ago and far away. I thought as you do that "white night" is the way to go.

I found out that i was wrong. 1, in the family court almost all women lie/exaggerate about their former husband, whereas the man is forthright/truthful, result the cynical judges believe that both parties are lying, go for what appears to be a fair/neutral position in between what they think are the 2 extreme positions and hey presto, your children get screwed.

2, same everywhere else, the feminist propaganda has been so entrenched for so long almost everybody instinctively agrees with it, when not one single word of it ever was true. Have you read "the myth of male power"? Be honest the first thing that pops into your head whenever you hear a story about some women being abused by a bloke, is, (probably true), (very common), (he should be locked up); Whereas whenever a man talks about being abused or his children neglected/abused everybody leaps in defense of "motherhood and apple pie", every excuse/sob story is trotted out, usually leading to the old mantra "jobs for the girls" "we need more social talkers".

The time is long past due for some totally, open, present in the moment, fearless, honesty.

"Evil prospers while good men do nothing"

Every single silver lining, that feminists point to as some kind of achievement, has dark storm clouds attached to it, and it not us men who suffer, but our children.

But lets lighten the mood with a joke. Q, What does WMD stand for? A, Women's Movement Delegation. copyright the formersnag 2003.
Posted by Formersnag, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 3:16:31 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
Formersnag, I've not worked how much much of what you say to take at face value. Are your comments mirroring what some womens advocates do (and agreed some do) or are you serious with those comments?

I'm quite against behaving as badly as I think my opponents do. Because some say the villest things about men/fathers etc does not mean that I need to return serve. I sleep better that way and when there are bystanders it's easier for them to tell who is behaving badly. I don't see any reason to believe that men lie and misuse the system more than women nor do I see a reason to believe the reverse. I can see that where there are rewards for a particular behaviour it might become more prevelant (get the kids and you get everything and visa versa) does impact on human choices.

In my own case I chose to tell the truth in the face of assorted lies, the magistrate observed that my ex "lacked a capacity for honesty". No obvious difference to the legal outcome but I can live with myself and I can always hope for karma. I've known women who have been badly ripped by men playing the game, it's not onesided.

Continuing to try and make it a gender issue just leaves people feeling that they have to choose sides.

Divorced men are all too often portrayed as angry women haters, I don't see how playing to the stereotype helps.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 5 August 2009 4:47:42 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
Robert, you may take every word at face value. I tell jokes occasionally, or use sarcasm to make a point, but i have never lied, either by exaggerating a half truth or making anything up as women do. Nor have i been advocating that we copy the women/feminists and make stuff up.

Every comment/post of mine is not even what i think/believe or considered/informed opinion, but ugly facts or inconvenient truths that i have found in books, not written by feminazis, backed up by real, personal experiences.

EG, female legal aid staff, deliberately giving men false legal advice on matters of family/dv law because the media, their lecturers, whoever, told them, that "all men are liars/bastards" including you, robert, eyeinthesky, myself, all of us, without exception. I can assure you the venom you saw from chazP & bobtwat is perfectly normal, their hatred knows no bounds.

I am merely advocating that as far as the gender wars are concerned those women who could be termed moderate, are the "silent majority". They are not in the trenches lobbing bombs at us, the only women active in the feminist movement are the extremists.

The consequences of feminism are child abuse, the whole of our children abused, and nothing but paedophilia, regardless of whether it has occurred directly or indirectly. We must stop being polite and call them Lesbian, Feminazi, Paedophiles because that is what they have achieved, that is what they are.
Posted by Formersnag, Thursday, 6 August 2009 6:07:57 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
Meanwhile over on another thread we have SJF (who I consider to be a somewhat militant feminist) saying "I believe the more recent introduction of 50-50 child residency legislation in some countries is a progressive move." and
"Women are no more or less progressive, racist or democratic than men."

We also have Fractelle saying "What is important is the best interests of the child, if that proves to be the father, then so be it. The problem is not women, it is the anachronistic family court system that is still in the 19th Century regarding the make-up of families - it hasn't caught up with the fact that many women want careers and the progress many men have made in wanting to be fathers rather than just breadwinners. Currently the system plays into the hands of women who want to retain control of all children and men who still believe that child care is the women's responsibility."

Pelican says "Making this debate into one about paternalism is not especially useful. Detractors of home birthing are not sitting around thinking about how to oppress women, they are concerned mainly for the welfare of chidlren."

Formersnag if you spent less time attacking feminists and more time listening to what they say you might learn a bit.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 6 August 2009 6:45:23 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
"Both sides need Human Rights
Angryant47"

Yes, both sides need to have a fair trial, and be fairly represented. But again, the question is probably more along the lines of "Is a BILL of rights the best way to actually protect our human rights?"

I would argue that a Bill of rights will actually create a selfish, self-centred and less community orientated society in which, ironically, our "rights" are trampled by the sheer ugliness of the legal systems and hampered police force "Bills of Rights" create.

Imagine this... a policeman enters a scene and checks someone's rubbish bin and finds a gun(!) but without a warrant. In America this gets thrown out as evidence. In Australia, our magistrates get to weigh the infringement of the right of privacy with the public NEED to catch and convict a mass-murdered.

In America, privacy in this case is an absolute right. What a load of tosh! In Australia, the cop that broke the normal police codes might be reprimanded but the public good demands that this evidence be considered.

So when people start raving about Bills of Rights, I start asking what about my "right" to live in a safer society?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 6 August 2009 6:46:51 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
Robert, i accept those quotes at face value, good to see.

But i have never, personally, experienced anything, even slightly, like that ever, before. Except for a few occasions where i have been speaking to older women who have seen their son get screwed in the family court and been cut off from their grandchildren. Or again they (older women) have seen their grandchildren being neglected and abused by yet another deadbeat, single mother. The only other phenomenon which i have encountered is single women at hillsong style churches, who have begun to realise that feminism has made women extremely unattractive to men, and that's, why they can't find one. At least, one who will commit to, more than a one night stand.

Have another look at graham y's article & comments, "the age, etc". My first post was "nice as pie", so too, were all others by alleged right wingers. It was the lefties/feminists who started it, as usual. Playing the victim is how, they are playing mind games with us. When you are a stone, cold, socio/psychopath determined to dominate, the first rule, of mind games, is blame the victim, (eg, you have a problem, all men are bastards) the 2nd is accuse your accuser, (eg, you are playing mind games/using bad language, pulling stats out of the corn flakes packet, etc)

I do listen to them very carefully. Reading the article/posts all the way through, slowly, word for word and respond, line by line in subsequent posts with constructive, factual, criticism. No man ever plays to a stereotype, just responds to injustice being inflicted on their children as i have. Your,

Battler
Against
Reactionary
Stereo
Typing
And
Retarded
Dyke's
Posted by Formersnag, Sunday, 9 August 2009 5:45:23 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
Formersnag,
It is so refreshing to hear another person who is up to the wiles of some women.It is a very simple process, just accuse the other (male)of a greater crime and the cops will quickly over look what the sweetmouthed incredibly religious female has done. Ofcourse the crime has to be of a sexual nature to get the best attention and I suppose it does not hurt a policemans record when he can make an arrest and the victim is in the situation of proving his innocence as opposed to the standard of proving guilt.
The stupidest words I have heard in a magistrates court came from a magistrate. "Of course Mr Bloggs there is not much in this but if I dont put a DVO on you,that is what you want and we cant have that."Took 18 months and a lot of dollars to get that one set aside., Bill of Rights is useless when there is a law that is neither just or fair and can be manipulated by the big $ companys by the use of a verbal bully and the old school tie
Posted by Angryant 47, Monday, 10 August 2009 10:45:35 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
Has a post been deleted? I thought I saw one here earlier which I can't locate now.

Eclipse Now one of the arguments put forward against the Bill of Rights concept many years ago was that under our system we can do pretty much anything that is not forbidden in law, under the bill of rights approach you can do what is allowed in law. A catchy phrase but I've never worked out how much practical difference it makes, our governments seem to be on a never ending search to find more ways of regulating us.

Fot the current topic my guess is that they would not provide additional protection from those who ignore existing laws covering assault, neglect, sexual abuse of minors, child protection etc.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 10 August 2009 5:40:51 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
Robert, think, strategy, tactics, "the art of war", have you considered, that, the allegedly, extreme nature of my work, in this area, takes the heat, away from you, and makes you, look like one of the good guys, the moderate, middle of the road, reasonable, more easy going guys. Give me some credit, work with me just a little bit.
Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 11 August 2009 6:42:29 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
I refer to article and comments posted......most I agree with.
I - and many others - are still seeking justice for child abuse victims going back to those children who were institutionalised from 1930 to 1980's in Salvation Army Homes, catholic homes and several other institutions.
My question being why won't NSW "lift" the Statute of Limitations in order for child abuse victims to be able to commence proceedings against their perpetrators? The last State to lift the Statute of Limitations being SA....many charges and convictions have since been reported against said perpetrators...now doing time. My congratulations to Police investigation and personnel involved in putting these evil people behind bars.
I was not abused as a child - the Senate Enquiry of 2004 into victims of child abuse (access to over 520 victims letters available for public perusal) has planted a "footprint in my heart" forever in seeking justice to any child (now adult) who was a victim of child abuse whilst institutionalised. I continue to send letters to relevant Ministers.....most respond in a positive manner, the issue -child abuse - rather difficult for them to address - I wonder why?
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 20 August 2009 9:21:19 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
Formersnag, sorry I'd missed your post. I doubt that it works like that. More likely that it plays to stereotypes.

Some parts of your posts I like but I disagree very strongly with the way you talk about feminists, even the ones who I think have got it very wrong still tend to be a lot better people than you give them credit for.

SAINTS, excellent that you have taken up the effort in that area. A loyt of people have suffered greatly through various forms of child abuse.

I can see why the statute of limitations issue would be difficult. It would be very tough both for prosecution and defence to deal properly with offences from so far back. I'd hate to have to be defending myself against a false claim from years ago where I could have done the crime but did not. How do you get an alibi for what you were doing on particular night's 30 years ago? How do you prove that you did not do something from that far back?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 August 2009 9:38:48 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
Robert thank you for responding and comments.
The lifting of Statute of Limitations has nothing to do with proving innocence or guilty of an offence .....it is purely a matter of the level of compensation to victims as they were Wards of the State of NSW at time of abuse.
Ask any child, now adult, the relevant questions as to what, where and when incident occurred, they can certainly remember who suffered trauma, rape etc they would certainly know the name of the perpetrator including institution/s involved.....their memories of extreme abuse are extremely clear and precise. NSW (Government) currently don't wish to deal with the situation due to possible compensation claims - as they were the carers of our "children" during this time...I currently have several "abused" victims on my email list who are anxiously awaiting the lifting of the Statute of Limitations in NSW jurisdiction. A child (any child) did not ask to be born .....a child (any child) deserves guidance, nuture and love .....these are our "forgotten children" now adults trying to cope with their past.
Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 20 August 2009 10:13:18 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
False allegations, recovered memory etc has everything to do with limitations.Memories are embellished by time and the notion that one can get even more money for a better story. The witches of Salem were executed on the false allegations of children.We all know that there is no such thing as a witch but the accusing person received the benefit of the deceased estate. Marvellous how the witches dried up when the law was changed.Yes, there has to be limitations and I feel that the first thing that an accusing person should be required to do is prove that there is no monetary or other gain to them by accusing any person.That would cut down considerably on the Legal bill for the Government and save the destruction of many families throughout Australia.If all these memories of childhood in particular are going to disappear due to compensation then it is time to believe in the tooth fairy. What is the next "legal" scam?
Posted by Angryant 47, Saturday, 22 August 2009 5:48:54 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. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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