The Forum > Article Comments > The choice between a bad option or a worse one > Comments
The choice between a bad option or a worse one : Comments
By James Boyce, published 12/7/2007If the government is not going to remove abused Indigenous children from their communities, what are they going to do with them?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Dan Fitzpatrick, Friday, 13 July 2007 1:03:55 AM
| |
TOPENDA brings some unfortunate prejudices to the debate.
This silly idea that the Feds shouldn't take action in the NT unless they also act everywhere else in the same way at the same time hardly bears consideration. Putting aside less than 1% of Indigenous land (on which the community towns/houses are located) for the purpose of providing fair allocation of housing, sound planning and infrastructure development (worth hundreds of millions of dollars) for 5 years is NOT a land grab - compensation to traditional owners is guaranteed. It is a generous investment in the future of the mass of the residents, very few of whom are traditional owners of the land on which the communities are located. Howard will not (and should not) "march the army and federal police into Melbourne,Sydney,Brisbane etc", because he should try to force the states, with all their resources and responsibilities (compared to the limited resources and responsibilities of the NT Govt), to take up these challenges. He is offering to help the states in this, via partnerships. The PM is obviously and demonstrably not "saying that child abuse only exists in Aboriginal communities" or that "no non-Indigenous peoples commit these things". You forget to note that the Commonwealth still retains particular legal responsibilities (and liabilities) in the NT. This is not "children overboard" - it is more akin to efforts to assist seriously endangered people in the firing lines of high-powered guns (after Port Arthur) and Indonesian and Solomon militia gangs, or efforts to assist the Acehenese after the tsunami. Remember, not all of Howard's actions have been irretrievably evil. Posted by Dan Fitzpatrick, Friday, 13 July 2007 1:27:36 AM
| |
TOPENDA
I suggest that: a) No matter who we vote for, (of ALL parties) we end up with a 'politician' in parliament. b) You seem to be suggesting that as long as we get RID of Howard and company, we will suddenly be blessed with enlightened, selfless, caring and wise government ? :) (cough, choke, splutter) c) If labor or others get in, it will just be a different set of 'consultants' (of the right political flavor) who benefit. Seeking to portray the 'lets root out the evil of child abuse' as a "land grab" is... very malicious. The ONLY reference to 'land' I've noticed in the media is that individuals will have title rather than communities. This makes them no different from other Australians (gee.. do I sound like Pauline here ? :) wow..EQUALITY.. shock horror. Those who wish to 'contain' Indigenous communities as 'separate' are in fact guilty of racial and cultural APARTHIED. SIMON of WAGGA2.... "That said, I don't have any solutions to the real problems facing the down-trodden in this country." You also mentioned 'a bit of love'.... well... I also recommend that. But perhaps a 'lot' would be better than a little. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples..that you have love, one for another" (John 13:35) Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 13 July 2007 6:18:51 AM
| |
Sexual abuse is utterly abhorrent and absolutely not to be tolerated. Racial isolation is also abhorrent and not to be tolerated.
The first issue is getting plenty of media coverage and expressions of concern and alarm. I agree the perpetrators of the abuse need to be punished. It is no more approved of in indigenous communities than it is anywhere else. The second issue however is seen by government detractors as a 'land grab'. This is nonsense. Unpopular though it may be to say so land rights is a form of reverse racism - apartheid if you like. There needs to be a very different approach to indigenous affairs in Australia. Rather than isolating people in remote communities to try and preserve a culture and way of life that no longer exists we need to encourage participation in the 21st century. The culture vultures who insist that cultural preservation overrides basic human rights do not live without basic amenities or access to health care, education, housing, employment etc etc. It is never good to lose languages or ways of thinking or traditional stories but at least some of that can be retained because we are aware of the potential loss. Posted by Communicat, Friday, 13 July 2007 8:14:49 AM
| |
Dan F, thank you for your contributions to this debate. It's too easy to list the negatives of Howards response and thereby miss the positives that will come out of this. Your on the ground viewpoint echoes that of my friends who work in this field. (confirmed Howard haters).
They have become increasingly frustrated by govt. and indigenous inaction in this area, and conclude that any action is better than none. Living in any society often necessitates some trade-offs between freedoms and rights, and our greater responsibilities to the group.eg The people of Cronulla had to put up with massive over-policing for months in the wake of the thuggery and rioting that took place there 18 months ago. And did so for the greater good. Given the scale of the problems exposed in the LCAS report, and the lack of social and police action to curtail the abuses, the Feds. actions are a reasonable response. Increased policing to limit criminality in the short term is too obvious, and too direct for some to understand. Using the armed forces for logistical support is too practical for these people too. Dan, are you aware of any progress in the area of stopping child sexual abuse in the remote communities as a result of the latest initiatives? Have there been arrests? Any way of knowing if the perpetrators have been scared off? Posted by palimpsest, Friday, 13 July 2007 8:44:16 AM
| |
There is little or NO servicing infrastruture at community ground levels in rural isolated Australia.
We need a real DEVELOPMENT PLAN with the participation of Communities, to help rebuild and empower rural and isolated communities. We need LONG-TERM Resources! NOT just more FUNDING ROUNDS. We need SOLID GROUND. We need BASIC NEEDS and a Human Face put back into all forms of Government. We need Communication - to improve our inter-relationships and inter-activity... in regional politics. We need acceptance and change through community engagement. http://www.miacat.com/ Posted by miacat, Saturday, 14 July 2007 9:53:17 AM
|
There are some useful postings, especially Cornflower's (as usual) and Belly.
Pegasus carries on with predictable shallow cynicism. If "Howard and Brough haven't actually thought about this at all" they would not have been able to put together such a forceful response in such quick time.
Howard may be a lot of nasty things, but he is not completely stupid. If I was in his position, I too would be incredibly frustrated by the lack of real progress on sexual abuse, violence and substance abuse through the normal Commonwealth programs, bureaucratic processes and NGO activities, let alone the irresponsible negligence by the Northern Territory and states of their duties in relation to effective interventions or prevention.
I think attacking the problem vigorously, using concurrent actions in relation to the safety-security/policing sphere, education/school-attendance, health/substance-abuse, infrastructure/planning, governance arrangements, etc makes a lot of sense.
Even though I question some of the details and lack of logistical realism and lack of longterm plan, I can see the logic of the strategy and appreciate the theme of generating synergies, movement and a brand new scenario.
It is the right time to overturn the moribund political arrangements and question conventional wisdoms.
Pegasus, Brough has been mentioning this issue today (it is absurd to call the initiative "an invasion").
They are now grappling with the detail of "what to do with the kids". It may have been a Rudd wedge, but it is not just that.
Simon mistakenly refers to "this current 'national emergency' circus", as though there is nothing immediate and serious that has to be dealt with at the national level.
Simon, weeping about the past is not going to get us anywhere, nor will entertaining obsessions about nuclear waste dump sites.
However I can agree with you that "the more we discuss it, the less time we spend considering the real issues behind all this sudden urgency."