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 > Time to remove the neglected generation > Comments

Time to remove the neglected generation : Comments

By James McConvill, published 31/5/2006

Child protection laws are there to protect children, whether Indigenous or not, so let's use them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
And where are these children going to go?

Who do you propose will care for these removed children? Will you be offering?

How will you deal with issues of identity and knowledge of kinship?

Can you guarantee that the children will be safe after removal? Will you accept legal liability?

Did you know that the state can be a very neglectful parent?

What are you personally doing in regards to this issue?

Surely the author of this piece is capable of a more substantial solution to a complex issue.

Yes children need to be safe, but issues such as housing, health, education and policing are not for the future, these things were needed years ago.

Aboriginal people are citizens and are entitled to services, the same as anyone else.

This raises the equality issue - but I am sorry one size does not fit all. An older female needs different services to a teenage male.

A person in a wheel chair needs different services and assistance than an elite athlete.

What we need is EQUITY.

This is a good example of the Aussie tradition of giving everyone a "fair go" and the flip side of "kick em when theyre down - sink the boot in MATE"
Posted by Aka, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 12:54:27 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
ROTFL.

I can just see it now, half of DOCS being relocated to the back of Burke to check on every one of those nasty Aboriginal parents..yeah right.

Then after DOCS has moved, all of the legal appeal mechanisms would have to follow. One thinks that James is looking out more for his students than the children.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 1:07:09 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 I was informed by a person who had apparently worked in a child protection department that the Government/state cannot legally be charged with neglect of a child and that only the parents can?

So the State can neglect Aboriginal children and ignore complaints about abuse and neglect of Aboriginal children and ignore the plight of the Aboriginal children and not be held accountable.

They just blame the parents.
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 1:56:56 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
The amazing ignorance of this author has combined with his unwitting racism to give us the remedy of blaming and removing the victims. How about enforcing our universal laws prohibiting child abuse and criminal neglect and removing the perpetrators? barbh.
Posted by barb h, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 2:39:15 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
If this abuse happened anywhere else, DOCS and other organizaitions with the Police would be banging down the parents doors and take the kids away. Its time our public servants enforced the laws they are charged to do so, and feel that they have the support of the community and the government to do so. If some urban white mother who takes drugs can have the little one sent away, then what's the difference with the aboriginals??

One law for all and no less. If you're incapable of properly raising kids, don't have them and if you do, you deserve them taken off you if they're abused. No matter who you are.

There are lots of metropolitan poor with kids. Some [a minority] of those parents take drugs, gamble a lot or whatever. But their kids look a hell of a lot better turned out in life, despite their barriers, and despite what in the eyes of some are failings by those parents, such parents don't routinely expose their kids to sexual abuse.

All this stuff about "what about keeping up their kinship etc" well these communities have to own their problems, and ACCEPT REPSONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. If that means dobbing in the uncle who rooted your kid, or moving to a new place, well you do all that you can for the best interest of your kids.....unless your simply having lots of kids to get a big family tax benefit cheque, what I suspect is the case in some remote indigenous communities.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 3:52:38 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 have a lot of sympathy and a preference for the use of the same laws for all of us.

What I do suspect would be a major outcome of the authors proposal is a reduction in the willingness to report abuse of indiginous children. Like it or not the emotional baggage around the stolen generation is going to leave a deep distrust about the removal of aboriginal children from their families for a very long time regardless of the situation those children live in with their families.

As an earlier poster pointed out different people do have different needs.

Now how can we protect these kids from abuse and neglect?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 6:29:07 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
It is sad what academic involvement in a dogmatic discipline does to your thinking. (It is a descriptive, not emotive term. Religion is another dogmatic discipline.)

It makes reality so simple and answers so obvious. A simplistic picture of reality is so convincing and straightforward solutions look so attractive – that it makes me worry, that it is likely to become the preferred ‘easy fix’ solution.

But it might be worth to look around and think through the whole problem.

It might be worth to ask ourselves:

• Are there any proven, working solutions?

Yes, there are. There are examples of effective, community-based intervention strategies that focus on solving the problem and CHANGING BEHAVIOURS. I recommend Barbara Biggs’ article ‘Moral Outrage’ from this website

• What would be side-effects of the proposed? It seems to me that quite obvious result of such policy would be putting the perpetrators into further desperation; it would hugely exacerbate problems of disconnection with reality.

• What would be the long-term effects the proposed solutions?

In fact, we know something about it. We know, that if we put kinds into foster homes, with a feeling of disconnection from the society they will not be exposed to appropriate role models, they will be deprived a loving family support. (Yes, I know – it was just forgotten, that they have mothers too.)

According to Professor Zubrzycki it was the case of many Vietnamese and Lebanese orphans that were taken - with best intentions - to Australia. Many of them ended up in gangs. This was the only social reality they knew, this was the only community setting they felt comfortable with…

Finally, the author says: ‘We would not want our own children to battle for a shower with 29 other inhabitants, fight over crumbs in something resembling a kitchen, or be at a heightened risk of sexual abuse. So we can’t let it happen any longer in northern Australia.’

I could not agree more. But … Should ANYONE in Australia live in such conditions?

We need to find a way to change the whole situation.
Posted by Paul_of_Melb, Thursday, 1 June 2006 1:48:06 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
The children should not be removed, the perpetrators should be, all of them.

In the same way that an Apprehended Vioence Order can be issued to remove a violent or threatening person from a residence, more or less on suspicion, anyone who is perceived as being a threat to these children should be removed.

One of the grounds of assessment could be intoxication, no intoxicated person should be in the presence of children in a situation where other people are not able to protect those children.

This should include parents where necessary, if a mother or father is too drunk, or absent due to drinking, to take care of children the parents are equally at fault.

Additionally, set up children's refuges 'on site' at the settlements, staffed by people of Aboriginal background, preferably from the same mob, who can look after the children for a few hours, days or weeks, ensuring the children's safety,nourishment, health care, education etc. A local foster parent scheme, with alcohol, and anyone under the influence of alcohol, banned from the facility.

It would also force the parents to show their hands - by them having to make a choice as to what was more important to them, their children or booze.

It would be halfway between removing children from their background and leaving them unprotected. Sure, it would not be cheap, but would be it would be worth it.

If care was required for more than a few days an assessment process could take place as to the competency of the parents to care for the children, and an education set in place to enable the parents to gain insight, skills and attitudes to get the children back.

My only fear is that the people staffing these facilities would be liable to be pressured or subject to violence from the others in the community.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 1 June 2006 8:48:51 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
I did reading recovery in school for 6/7/8 year olds to help children who were struggling to read. I believe that if you don’t fix reading issues early, a students education and outlook on life is seriously disadvantaged and damaged.

Immediately I noticed a pattern in the mistakes that these children were making. I realised that the problem for most was that they had picked up bad habits in relation to the sounds of certain regularly used letters. Without any acknowledgment to the child of the actual reason for the difficulty or any assistance or direction on how to change the bad habit, as opposed to just practicing more reading, the more they read the more it cemented the habit.

One little boy had a serious problem with his learning. I spoke to the teacher, I spoke to the other parents in reading recovery. Every parent could see that he had a serious learning problem and some even said that they had also spoken to the teacher. Because no action was taken I brought up the issue at a P & C meeting about how the school deals with students who have obvious educational difficulties and I mentioned this student in reading recovery.

Wow, did the mood in the room change….One mother very aggressively stated how she knew who this kid was and that his mother was Aboriginal and that she neglected the child at home!

I couldn’t believe it so I said that I didn’t care what that mother did at home or who she was. When the child was at school he should be educated regardless.

I suggested that the child needed to be assessed and that the mother should be included in the reading program and attend meetings to speak with the readers/teachers and her child together so that they can organize a plan to work together to best help the student succeed.

It was not a good meeting, and we ended up having to leave that school, but one day whilst walking down at the shopping centre this lady came past me and said “F..... off”.
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 1 June 2006 10:51:36 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
Ah, the old 'we know whats best for you' rhetoric rears its ugly head once again. The issue here is that there is a need (and great difficulty) in giving Indigenous Australians the sovereignty they deserve whilst also being interventionalist and concerned about fundamental human rights issues in many communities. This problem has been compounded throughout history by 'big brother' throwing money at the issue and hoping no-one would notice. And then all of a sudden we have brough running around like this problem just suddenly occured to him! What rubbish.

Complicated, heavily interconnected social issues require complex. heavily interconnected and well thought-out solutions. Grass roots iniatives at a community level is the only way these issues can be approached and constructively dealt with.

The rhetoric of this author, that we need to get over the stolen generation and all its horribleness, and start doing it again, is really difficult to comprehend..
Posted by jkenno, Tuesday, 6 June 2006 6:31:58 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 find such culturally blind and brutal opinions from someone who is teaching young people how to administer the law very difficult to stomach. I agree with many of the other postings when the question is asked "where" does Mr Convill want the children to be taken to? To remove them from their communities altogether and place them in "white" society may seem like the right thing to do if you consider "white" society to be better than Aboriginal. But wouldn't it be more appropriate and culturally sensitive/empathetic to fund safe houses and women's refuges within or close to communities and enable Aboriginal women to run them - likewise maybe "cool down" places for the men to go? This isn't rocket science and I am not an expert on any of this but the last thing that needs to be done, surely, is to punish the women and children by enforcing them to leave whatever security and support they do have in their communities. I would be interested to know if Mr Convill has ever visited a remote community (without an entourage, suit or tick list) and experienced first hand the positive steps that are being taken by many indignous women in providing safe houses in their own communities. These sustainable healing initiatives could be acknowledged and supported more instead of trying to apply Euro-Australian sticking plasters to the wound. They'll only slide off in the wash anyway!!
Posted by worldkitten, Wednesday, 7 June 2006 10:58:37 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
James says: "It is unfortunate that we have allowed this clear and simple fact to be overshadowed by the political correctness engineered by the bleeding hearts of the Left."

Herein lies the true intention of Jame's article -political point scoring.

There are a few versions of how “political correctness" found its way into discourse. The how determines the true meaning of political correctness. It can also be applied in language and other areas.

For the sake of this Jame’s article let's stick with the yarn about US Unis becoming the stronghold of certain ideas and etiquette. It is charged that these ideas were leftist. Whatever that is? To examine, analyse or criticise these established ideas was supposedly seen as paramount to heresy. That is the right’s take on it anyway. Academics who challenged the dominant paradigm were often supposedly howled down. Most of this is untrue. Ideas were often rejected because they were racist or just plain wrong. Nevertheless, a lot of sensible thinking was treated unfairly as well.

Of course, the far right created a monster out of political correctness. This was something to add weight to otherwise shallow and often racist and cultural supremacist arguments. People get riled at the suggestion that they are being shut up. A look at Australian history and discourse doesn’t suggest political correctness slowed many people from speaking their piece. Now the situation has become absurd and reversed with people jumping on the rubbish truck and entrenching their own dominant set of ideas and unloading all sorts of garbage on people who hold different opinions
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 8 June 2006 10:10:05 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
continued

The dominant paradigm in Australian culture is pretty well conservative and reactionary. It certainly has cultural supremacists, supposedly representing it, who will jump on a single aspect of a whole “outside” culture to dump on that culture and its peoples. You only have to read the conservative cliché laden language folks get bombarded with if they try to defend or show the positive aspects of other cultures. Now they are howled down. The stereotyping of the lefty-bleeding- heart, do-gooder is so overdone it is funny. But here is the rub, these right wing politically motivated folk like James McCovill are so caught up in their own position and positioning that they can’t see that they are now the ones being politically correct. I can’t recall such measures being pushed and the right being so vocal in relation to child abuse in the church and private schools. But that is different?

Anything that damages children is wrong and indigenous people don’t need conservatives telling them that. Indigenous culture as whole is dynamic can change for the better in that aspect. It is a bit rich that a mainstream that whitewashes child abuse and glosses over their own atrocious behaviour is offering advice to other cultures. Talk about political correctness.

So James your first sentence should read. It is unfortunate that we have allowed this clear and simple fact to be overshadowed by the political correctness engineered by the bloody minded of the Right.

Homework
Research indicates that pre-invasion there were 750,000 indigenous people in Australia, and now there are around 200,000. There were 500 distinct groups using 200 distinct languages.
Research indicates that pre-invasion there were 750,000 indigenous people in Australia, and now there are around 200,000. There were 500 distinct groups using 200 distinct languages.
Research indicates that pre-invasion there were 750,000 indigenous people in Australia, and now there are around 200,000. There were 500 distinct groups using 200 distinct languages.
Research indicates that pre-invasion there were 750,000 indigenous people in Australia, and now there are around 200,000. There were 500 distinct groups using 200 distinct languages.
Posted by rancitas, Thursday, 8 June 2006 5:54:14 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
James McConvill is a perfect example of why we should support 'Stem Cell Research', eventually it may be possible to grow James McConvill a BRAIN!!
Posted by darkangel, Wednesday, 21 June 2006 10:59:19 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
According to Andrew Bolt,there never was a stolen generation,and anyone that disagrees with him is wrong,it will be good to hear from others what they think of Andrew Bolt's version
Posted by KAROOSON, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 4:52:41 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
yes
Posted by Anny, Thursday, 5 July 2007 8:49:13 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
Apart from all the other issues involved here, I know the simple truth is that a traumatised child leads to a traumtised adult.
Having been removed from my parents at 2 years for about 2 weeks and dumped in a children's home by well-meaning relatives and abused there-in, I've needed psychotherapy for years to deal with this. I can only be horrified that forcible removal and its inherent evils for the child is put forward. There are some valid points raised by James but his suggestion is certainly invalid.
Communities need empowerment that has to start with consultation, education, meaningful lifestyles i.e. work, activities that build up the strength of the community etc. It starts with the babies and is worked up to change from this start. Sure, there need to be boundaries and laws but a strengths-based approach designed by aborigines themselves with our support(the average aussie who usually turns a blind eye to all this, myself included,)plus positive government intervention is the only way I can see could work here.
Brutalised people act brutally.
Posted by Anny, Thursday, 5 July 2007 9:09:47 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. All

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