Another good contribution Stephen, thank you - a mix of passion and reason.

I was particularly touched by the Bobby Bismark story and I agree that there are many other Bobby Bismark stories out there.

However, I expect the usual suspects will be on line soon to tell you it never happened - or if it did, it was the best thing at the time.

History is very important as the past influences the present and the future.

I am unsure if I share your dismay with Peter Beatie, as I pray that he and his government will have the fortitude to insist on justice.

His is a diffent history to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples but already history is being made.

Charges have been laid, apparently for the first time in Australia's history a person has been charged over a black death in custody.

It is now up to the courts to determine what happened on that dreadful night.

Tempers and statements are being bandied around in NQ. Many of them poorly thought out and some downright alarming.

I am sure that if people making these horrendous statements were asked to really consider that what they are saying they would not really be endorsing such action.

I only hope that people think before they speak, and maybe imagine what it would be like if it were their father, brother, son or grandson who died that night.

How do we move on from here? How does the genre of hate be renegotiated?

Good one SH,

Only I don't agree with Professor Hughes’s remark when she wrote:

"“… a typical victim of the apartheid-like policies that have denied Aborigines mainstream Australian lives since the 1970s. Any group subjected to the same policies would become dysfunctional.”

Why?

Well if mainstream lives meant open access to real economies, real choices then yes it was denied.

But to simply suggest that mainstream lives was about becoming white then she's way off the mark.

Real choices would have been to live on Palm Island or elsewhere and be able to chart an economic, political, social and familial future.

If mainstreaming means giving up all legal entitlements as first nations peoples and assimilate then its not mainstreaming, its conditional assimilation. This was not possible in law in the 1970's and it is still not possible now even with the rescinding of draconian Acts of law that regulated and controlled Aboriginal lives.

I totally reject First World Australia as the only benchmark for which we should all aspire, or be measured, or be judged.

As Ghandi said when asked 'What do you think of Western Civilisation"

He responded "I think it would be a good idea".

And this brings in another perspective of whether or not Beattie could ‘manage’ this issue anyway.

Unless one thinks “self management of governments programs” on Palm Island is the ultimate goal. If you believe in mainstream access and participation is the panacea we all need - you probably support such a goal. I for one don’t.

Excellent post, but two points I want to raise:

You wrote: Acting Chief Coroner’s (Christine Clement) report recommends charges be laid against the offending officer (Sergeant Chris Hurley);

Actually, the coroner can not recommend charges be laid, and she didn't. What she DID say was far more damning: that Hurley's actions resulted in Mulrunji's death. Plain and simple.

Second, on Prof. Hughes "domestic." I object to the quotations marks--it seems to trivialize the incident that started all the trouble. The police were there in the first place giving protection to Gladys Nugent, who'd been bashed by her partner.

Peter Beattie is nothing short of being a politician of less backbone than a bowl of porridge who caves in to every lobby group be they Aboriginal, fundamental Christian's or whatever.

The QLD Police should activate as much Industrial action as possible including not offering him or any members of his government, protection from those who wish to get in their faces. Refusing the police to the right to defend themselves, by cowering to all threats of violence from Aboriginal groups will only lead to more violence.

In the end, the only real solution is to radically increase police presence in area's of violence and deal with them with all means necessary.

"…threats of violence from Aboriginal groups will only lead to more violence."

I've yet to hear about these threats Spider.

Or are you just embellishing on police union histrionics?

"The QLD Police should activate as much Industrial action as possible including not offering him or any members of his government, protection from those who wish to get in their faces."

I hope so.

Then they can all be sacked and new blood brought in.

"Refusing the police to the right to defend themselves, by cowering to all threats of violence from Aboriginal groups will only lead to more violence."

So if someone punches you in the face, and their liver ends up split in two, you should never be charged? It's really quite interesting how many people are prepared to assume that Hurley must be innocent.

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com

Photoblog of 26 January Invasion Day rally, Brisbane:
http://letstakeover.blogspot.com/2007/01/invasion-day-in-brisbane-murri.html

Not the first time, Aka
As I recall seven men were hanged in NSW in the 19th C. because of wanton shooting of Aborigines, some of whom were in custody.

Roy was sitting in the station’s yellow chair when Chris Hurley dragged Cameron Doomadgee into the hallway. Roy heard [’Mulrunji’] say, “I am innocent, don’t lock … Why should you lock me up?”
Chris dragged him in and he laid him down here and started kicking him. All I could see [was] the elbow gone down, up and down, like that … “Do you want more, Mister, Mr [’Mulrunji’]? Do you want more of these, eh, do you want more? You had enough?”

Roy’s view was partially obscured by a filing cabinet, but he could see [’Mulrunji’]’s legs sticking out. He could see the fist coming down, then up, then down: “I see knuckle closed.” Each time the fist descended he heard [’Mulrunji’] groan.

Cameron, he started kicking around and [called] “leave me go,” like that, “now”. “Leave me go – I’ll get up and walk.”

But Roy says Hurley did not stop:

Well, he tall, he tall, he tall, you know … just see the elbow going up and him down like that, you know, must have punched him pretty hard, didn’t he? Well, he was a sober man, and he was a drunken man.

Doomadgee was then dragged into the cells. Moments later, Chris Hurley came back and Roy saw him rubbing his chin. Hurley had a button undone. “Did he give you a good one?” Roy asked. “A helluva good one,” Hurley apparently replied. Then Hurley asked Roy if he had seen anything. Roy said no, and Hurley told him to leave. Roy went to get his social security cheque, along the way telling some friends, “Chris Hurley getting into [’Mulrunji’].” They told him, “Go tell someone, tell the Justice Group.” But none of them did anything. They went on drinking.

The cell’s surveillance tape shows [’Mulrunji’] writhing on a concrete floor, trying to find a comfortable position in which to die. He can be heard calling, “Help Me!” Another man, paralytic with drink, feebly pats his head. Before he dies [’Mulrunji’] rolls closer to the man, perhaps for warmth or comfort.

And the Police Union now want the recommendations of the Deaths in Custody inquiry implemented across the state.

Too little too late... but I'm wondering why the are now siding with what many of us and the indigenous communities have wanted for years?
(Actually my tongue is stuck firmly in my cheek.) As their purpose is quite the reverse of what others expect. ie they want them implemented to protect police from prosecution. Laughable really given the evidence in the recent case heard in Logan where it was found a policeman actually switched off the survellance recording while one of his mates was assaulting a prisoner.

Keith, I'm sure the police union's motives are dishonest and hypocritical, but I'm just happy they've been forced to demand the right thing.

Mise,
I did wonder about the statement about this being the first time anyone was charged in Australia for a black death in custody.

I think that maybe the incident you mentioned was in the colony of NSW - not Australia as such.

Then again, maybe it was just outright murder and not in police custody.

I am not sure if the people murdered were in legal custody.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of histroy can inform us.

Still it is pretty scary that it is now the 21st century and we are having to look at the 19th century for another incident.

I note that an activist in Townsville is asking for police who do not agree with their union to speak out. I wonder if any will.

Good heart felt points. But true on the treatment of underclasses generally. I can recall my wife being upset, when she saw a police booking an obvious "battler" in a beat-up old for a minor traffic infringement. I can recall a group of police "walking around" a Rolls Royce illegally parked across a pedestian crossing in Pitt Street, Sydney.

Palm Island is a contemporary incident. I think, it is Shark Island in Port Jackson, where the Crown chained a convict to the ground and beat his each night of two years. According, to the tour guide his skin has so masticated that he scream with pain, when it rained. His crime? He looked up, when on a work duty, when a guard said not to. Little has changed, Stephen.

Queensland could have Royal Commission into The Police. But, if NSW, is any example, we amstnesties to leave and superficialities

I looked at several Queensland Cabinet submissions years ago (initially around the mid-1990s, probably when Goss was still Premier) about Palm Island. It seemed to me that it could never be a viable community, offshore with extremely limited opportunities, a desperate shortage of water and, because of its penal origins, a mixture of people from many different areas and groups. It seemed to me that it was best to offer resettlement on the mainland to all who wanted it, they'd have far more opportunities and could rejoin their traditional communities if they wanted to. But this was ruled out then and, more recently, by Beattie (who I think is appalling).

Stephen, what's your view? Would the offer of resettlement be of long-term benefit?

My Unlce was removed to Palm Island in the 1940's from Cape York.
He was held their until the freeing up of laws in the 70's which allowed movement without permits.

He returned to his (our) traditional country to discovre his people had been removed to other missions or were 'shot out'.

He went back to Palm Island, a place he called home until he died.

The cemetary at Palm Island is a sea of white crosses, some with names many not.

I found his right next to other kith and kin that were removed there.

I know my 'traditional family' on PI and they know me.

Its their home now, and mine too for that matter.

Resettlement is not a choice if its where you consider home to be.

Would resettlment for norfolk islanders onto the mainland be in order? Yes, no. Discuss.

Rainier,

"He was held [there] until the freeing up of laws in the 70's which allowed movement without permits."

That is disturbing. Are you saying that citizens of Palm Island were not allowed leave, without permission, even in this 60s? "Held" in what context? I have heard of "internal" movement permits in China, never Australia. Please expand.

Rainier, thanks for that info, it will help me and others to better understand the situation on Palm.

Rainier,

These threats are printed by the media many times. Not just from certain Aboriginals attempting to cause trouble but by other's as well. My statement of treating such people should be the same across the board.

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

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?

Rainer,

Thank you. I did not know about these matters. Suspect, many city people would be equally ignorant.

Rainier,

Thank you. I did not know about these matters. Suspect, many city people would be equally ignorant.

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.

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.

Young Dan,

You would think a coroner in those circumstances should have felt compelled to report it to the appropriate prosecuting authority.

Coroners have a wide scope of enquiry to get an understanding of what happened not limited by rules of evidence. Sometimes this seems to make them feel that they can let their hair down generally.

From the two ‘cases’ (albeit a small number of examples) it almost seems like when there is a death in custody the coroner picks a side and then just slots findings in to fit the side they have chosen.

Ok, I've read these posts and they are a bit concerning.

A few points, Keith first, the Qld Police Union has been demanding video cameras in all state watch houses since the recommendations of the Fitzgerald Enquiry, some 16 years ago. To this point State Governments have decided not to impliment that recommendation. So no need for tongue in cheek. Also you state a Logan case. Evidence or hearsay?

David, even better, you suspect the police union is dishonest and hypocritical. Is that bourne out of a personal gripe or just a personal feeling. You state your sure of that. How?

Aka, I'm assured all police stand by their union on this matter. Why? Because of their mans innocence. Mark my words, he'll be aquitted. Unfortunately not all of society wishes to pleasantly accompany police to police stations to be interviewed or charged, unbelievably, some even want to fight police...imagine that. Do they want to die in the process? No. Do police want to kill them? No. Accidents happen.

Aka again, accuses the police union of spitting the dummy etc. The union is not upset about the umpires decision and in fact if the DPP has recommended charges be laid then I bet you would have heard nothing. It's the process of how this has come about. Blatant political interference in the judicial process. Thats what is being objected to. Nothing sinister. Look at the events with an open mind. Don't assume consiracy.

People we need to speak facts, not state personal opinions and purport them to be facts.