Passy,

Are you suggesting that the children being taken these days should not be taken at all, but left in their current conditions ?

Joe

Hmm, I've gotta say Rainier, in this particular case, I'm going to have to side with Leigh and Col's posts, which isn't a common occurrence.
It seems to me that you're not responding to what they've posted here, rather, you're attacking them for other commentary.

It would appear that this article has found some pretty common ground, which is a damn good thing. I can only concur with the statement that the apology is largely symbolic and it is the actions on the ground that will change lives for indigenous communities.

The difficulties in this issue, as in most issues, lie in where we place our priorities.
Some say the apology is of paramount importance, others say it's merely symbolic and won't change anything, save for creating a risk of compensation claims.

Putting aside the issue of compensation for a moment - which, won't at the end of the day change the situation on the ground in remote communities, I can't see any problem with the apology.
I see it as a government apologising for sins the country has committed in the past - not as an apology for anything I have done, because I don't believe I carry any responsibility for those past actions. Those choices were made before I was born.
When I view the situation through this prism, I'm fine with it.

Once the apology is out of the way, I hope we can focus more on the practicalities. Then the issue becomes, how much paternalism will we accept from the government on this score?
I don't like the paternal actions that are taking place in relation to government intervention in indigenous lives, but quite frankly, I think most Australians are coming to the view that things have gotten so bad, anything is better than just letting it continue this way.

"Passy, then you must think that leaving Aboriginal children in dysfunctional camps where they are subject to terrible sexual and violent abuse, neglect,malnutrition is preferable to taking them to safety.
You are very strange.Poor children."

These are the same sort of arguments used to take the stolen generation. We were wrong then. We may well be wrong now.

I would suggest that the solution is in the hands of the communities, not sending troops in, taking their land and so on.

And I wonder why if all this alleged abuse justifies sending the army in, that there are not troops in Catholic schools to protect children there. My guess is that the level of abuse is higher in white schools than in aborignal communities. But there aren't any votes in doing that are there?

Also, I say alleged abuse becuase I wonder where are all the cases of abuse now before the courts as a result of rescuing the children? I stand to be corrected, but what are the figures now from NT?

Passy,

Just because a similar argument is used, doesn't mean that it is not valid in a particular situation. Of course, there are Indigenous (and other) kids right now who should be in care, and if you don't know that, you don't get around much. In fact, given the nature of poverty and destitution, and the fact that back in the thirties and forties and fifties, there were many non-Indigenous kids in care, in homes, in orphanages (when they weren't orphans), what is the mystery about a proportion of the 'Stolen Generation' being in care, due to dire poverty and estitution ? Surely the issue should be to castigate the governments of the day for the social, housing, educational and economic policies which forced so many Indigenous people into dire poverty, to the point where so many of their children were taken.

My father was in care for most of his childhood, after his mother went a bit crazy when her youngest baby fell into the copper; he was looked after by a very nice Salvation Army lady, so I am forever grateful (as an atheist) to the Salvation Army. My mother's mother was a Barnardo baby, put into care because her young mother, a domestic servant, couldn't look after her. My father was Irish, my mother's mother born in Hull.

And the whole aim of the Intervention is (as I understand it) not primarily to punish offenders but to stop the abuse and take away the conditions under which it festers. Getting idle people working might be one step (which will mean literacy and training programs). Getting parents caring for their kids might be another (which means controlling the grog). Putting a police station in every small settlement should be a last resort.

Joe

Passy
The major problems with the government-sanctioned taking of kids in the time of the Stolen Generations were first, that the policies which enabled the removals were often motivated by naked racism; secondly that most of those removed were subjected to state-sanctioned neglect and abuse of varying kinds which were often worse than the situations they were being taken from.

These days child welfare departments no longer operate under clearly racist legislation or regulations. However, there still appear to be considerable problems with the ways that removed kids are often treated, with insufficient funds and focus to give at least some of them a better chance in life than they would otherwise be experiencing.

About your view "that the solution is in the hands of the communities, not sending troops in, taking their land and so on." You are very much on the wrong track here.

In some communities, if not many, there is clearly insufficient capacity to solve a lot of urgent problems. Expecting small demoralised, isolated and under-serviced communities to perform very difficult work for damaged kids is often quite unrealistic and unfair on the kids and everyone else.

By the way, troops have not "been sent in" in the way you seem to imagine. A few unarmed young blokes were sent to some places to drive medical volunteers around, put up tents for them and kick footballs around with kids in an attempt to interest their parents in bringing them down to clinics for normal health checks. Don't believe all the hype of the anti-interventionistas!

Re child sex abuse: There are around 38 investigations proceeding at the moment in the NT into alleged child sex abuse in remote communities. Some of these will come to court, but getting plausible witnesses remains a big problem.

There has been a time lag of several years in WA between starting investigations, increasing policing and being able to commence prosecutions.

I'd be very surprised if current abuse levels in Catholic schools are still what they used to be before the exposees of the 1990s.

Passy

It is wrong to return children to be abused ... especially since the evidence is over-whelmingly that that is what is allowed to occur. And if you read my latest Article I think you'll come to the conclusion that doing so in queensland is Quueensland Government Policy.

And you might like to check with a 12 year Queensland girl whether she thinks it's the right thing to do... if you can get past her current violence and anger.
Oh and currently after being returned to the situation to be raped over and over she is now permenantly housed ... alone, with paid departmental carers and psychiatric consultations in a house in a Queensland city. Which is far from the remote family where she had been returned.

So what is better. Keep her away from her family and community after the ongoing abuse or remove her from that situation after the fist rape?

I think addressing the issues that have caused the initial dysfunction are the best solution. There are three, NNoel Pearsons 'economic solutions', individual land ownership as opposed to community ownership, and a treaty which states exactly the expectations of both parties. I am writing another article on one of those currently.
Await with interest...:-)