Knowing when not to say sorry is more important. If ever there was a case to deny an apology, it is now with the absolute nonsense of the fabricated ‘stolen generation’.

I respect the author’s legal comments; but legalities will not stop demands for money. Last night on ABC radio, another (there must be more of them than elected politicians) self-appointed black ‘leader’ was heard to say that, yes, the apology is wonderful, but now we must be recompensed.

And no; as the author said, the sums of money might not be a big deal. But, what about the symbolism of paying out money and giving in (the Government will give in)?

The whole thing is about symbolism and kudos for black activists.

The flood gates – not perhaps from Treasury – are opened with this apology. The stirring and agitating from activists will now be unstoppable. And, ordinary black Australians will hardly know anything has happened.

Bruce Trevorrow is entitled to his payout, in my opinion, because of the way he was treated after he was removed, and kept in the dark for most of his life.

"Legalities will not stop demands for money." Let's unpack this statement.

As it stands, a national apology will not automatically result in additional compensation liability. Most of the legislation authorising the removal of children until 1970 was state-based (the Commonwealth didn't even have the constitutional power to legislate "with respect to" Indigenous people until 1967); only one claim under state legislation has thus far been successful, and that's only because the state (of SA) did not comply with its own legislation (Trevorrow v SA No.5).

As it stands, a national apology would not increase the chances of successful compensation claims.

What IS likely, however, is renewed calls for the establishment of something like a "compensation tribunal", much like those which have be set up to compensate large numbers of people for other major historical wrongs. (The James Hardie asbestos claims tribunal is one recent example; for tribunals similar to that which would be proposed in Australia to compensate members of the Stolen Generation, see those in South Africa and especially Canada, where the Aboriginal Healing Foundation was established after the 1998 apology, and where a $1.9bn amount was made available as compensation in November 2005.)

Indeed, the moral force behind calls for such a tribunal is overwhelming. If one accepts that these people were wronged, then one must also accept that they are entitled to compensation from the state. To hide behind the argument that such “wrongs” were not considered “wrong” at the time is both historically inaccurate (there was always much contemporary criticism of the policy) and to perpetuate the injustice.

I’m unsure as to what you mean by the term ‘Give in’. Do you imagine that this is some kind of moral battle between the forces of Reason (the government) and those of the Troublesome Black Activists? Might I remind you that activism is a key ingredient in the liberal struggle for freedom, equality and justice? These activists are merely the leaders of a movement which seeks to have historical wrongs against Indigenous people treated in the same way as are wrongs against others.

This is just by way of information ...

Without Aboriginal stockmen, some of the largest and most profitable
properties would not have survived. These men were paid, at best,
half the wages of white workers, plus 'rations.' Their pay went into
savings accounts held by the state-owned Commonwealth Bank. They were
issued passbooks, which were held by the local Aboriginal Protector,
usually a 'reserve' manager, mission superintendent or policeman. They could not withdraw even the smallest amount without the custodian's agreement, and because many were illiterate they were unable to read the amounts deposited and withdrawn.

Rodney Hall, who was the editor of an Aboriginal newsletter in Queensland in the 1960s, estimates that the sums owed to Aborigine's,
after a lifetime's work, could amount to millions of dollars.
'These stockmen quite reasonably expected their savings to be accumulating,' he wrote, 'but the balance seldom amounted to more than a few thousand dollars, sometimes just a few hundred. I alerted
the media, but there was never an answer. Never a single letter or phone call from a mainstream newspaper, radio or television station.
Not one. The issue was not allowed to exist in the national forum.
Somebody's pockets were lined. Are we to believe it was the protectors? Or the holders of the pastoral leases? Once this has been cleared up, we can revisit the subject of the scale of reparations Aboriginal people may legitamately expect.'

The scale of reparations might be calculated against a historical truth which no Australian government has acknowledged.

I disagree that it is about money. It is about laying the guilt of cruelly treating a whole continent of aboriginal people on the present generation of non aboriginals.It is accusing us of evil actions that we had no part in,would never ever have taken part in.
This is a symbolic, feel good ,token of ALP airy fairy thinking that should never have arisen.
It is an insult and an offense and is an untruth.

Leigh, the papers are full of white people suing someone because they had wronged them in the past, so why shouldn't Aboriginal be afforded the same rights or is that you believe only white's should be protected by the law and not Blacks.

Aboriginal people in Canada,the USA and Australia were all removed on the request of their Governments as a policy and only stopped after the second wold war. They apparently learnt from their mistakes and stopped the policy whilst Australia continued its force removal program well into the seventies and remains unrepentant for doing so.

If their is to be an apology I would prefer it went to all of the Indigenous community, because I think that those Indigenous people killed in action not able to vote or own property to save you and your family in two world wars deserve to be acknowledged as well as those of us who paid taxes for services such as hospital, schools and housing programs which none of us could use.

Due to the limitation of words the statement is not complete and a full statement can be located at; http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

Comment: “Stolen generation” v “stolen children” v “forcefully removed children”


As a constitutionalist I am concerned that you claimed to be a federalist during the election but now somehow seem to be a centralist.
The Federal Parliament is a legislative body not an executive body and therefore can only express sorry what occurred in breach of its own legislation, hence it exclude anything done under state legislative and/or executive powers or federal executive powers.
The term “stolen generation” implies all children state or federal and as such in my view is inappropriate.
The term “stolen children” would apply to all children, regardless of being Aboriginal, white, half cast, etc, who were unlawfully removed, but not those forcefully removed in compliance with applicable federal legislation, such as in the Northern Territory and/or the ACT.
The term “forcefully removed children” applies to all children, Aboriginal, white, half-cast or whatever, who were removed under federal law, even so lawfully, against the parents consent.
If however any apology/sorry is expressed just against Aboriginals then it only can do so within the provisions of Section 51(xxvi) since 1967 for the whole of the Commonwealth Australia, as prior to that it had no legislative powers as to Aboriginals throughout the Commonwealth and this would therefore exclude any harm done to Aboriginals prior to 1967 (when the referendum was held) other then those of the Northern Territory and/or ACT.
Because there appear to be no definition existing as to what is an Aboriginal and genetically there is no DNA structure, as I understand it, to define a race, any apology therefore could not specifically define what is an Aboriginal.
Why should a half-cast or quarter-cast etc be termed to be an Aboriginals rather then Caucasian, Asian, Negro, etc?
.
Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka
Constitutionalist and Author of books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on constitutional and other legal issues

Healing?

Then as now, children were removed to save their lives, to protect them from rape and starvation and prostitution.

Healing will come when the people who created those conditions in their own communities apologise to their victims, and accept responsibility for change.

The many, many aboriginal people who are quietly and successfully looking after their families deserve protection from the substance abusers, rapists and paedophiles that prey on them. SORRY puts the responsibility on the people who DIDN'T do the worst.

"The overarching aim of a national apology is to set the nation on a path of healing." The nation; that's all of us. Here "healing" seems to mean the coming together of two parties, one of whom has wronged the other. I came here in 1979, and have never been involved in acts which harmed aboriginals. I have been harmed by others myself, leading to extreme depression, to come out of which I had to realise that whatever others did, I was causing my own pain by being unable to let go of what was done to me - the perpetrators had probably long forgotten it. Throughout my time in Australia, there have been non-aboriginals who have encouraged the maintenance of pain, of "victim-hood." Those people should apologise, for having made it harder for aboriginals to put aside any past wrongs and get on with life.

The article in the Australian 11-12/2 on the so-called "stolen generations" casts further doubt that a significant body of such people actually exists. I think that an apology may have the perverse effect of making unhappy a large body of people who feel that they have nothing to apologise for, without helping the much smaller number who seek an apology.

One cannot “set the nation on a path of healing’ with QUACK prescriptions. And an apology or a ‘sorry’ is a quack remedy coming with the compliments of the Rudd government.

http://kotzabasis3.wordpress.com

I note that a number of posters dispute the very existence of a “Stolen Generation”. I don’t see how that is possible.

Section 6 of Queensland’s Industrial and Reformatory Schools Act 1865 declared that “Any child born of an aboriginal or half-caste mother” was automatically a “neglected child” for the purposes of that Act, and was therefore subject (under ss 7 and 8) to being “immediately apprehended…without any warrant" to be “detained” in an “industrial school” “for not less than one year nor more than seven years”. Records show that “at least” 167 “half-caste” (sic) children were thus apprehended in Queensland before June 1905. That state’s Chief Protector, Walter Roth, believed that even “more stringent measures should be insisted on with a view to raising the social status of the half-caste children”, and saw no better way to do this than by taking “all such infants” from the camps to be “brought up as white children”, and prevented from “inbreeding” with “full-bloods”. The racism (the belief in the superiority of one’s own race over another) in these and many other statements of the time is clearly evident.

The NT’s Acting Administrator in 1911 wrote that “one of the first works to be undertaken is to gather in all half caste children who are living with aborigines”. “No doubt”, he continued, “the mothers would object and there would probably be an outcry from well meaning people about depriving the mother of her child”. The Ordinance of 1918 gave the Chief Protector power to, “at any time”, “undertake the care, custody, or control of any aboriginal or half-caste” – as the CP was the “legal guardian of every aboriginal and half-caste child, notwithstanding that the child has a parent or other relative living”. In 1933 the CP wrote that “Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour”.

The ‘Travelling Protector’ in WA in 1909 wrote that: “I would not hesitate for one moment to separate any half-caste from its aboriginal mother, no matter how frantic her momentary grief may be at the time. They soon forget their offspring.”

The term "stolen generation" is not generally being applied to the period 1865-1909, but to much more recent events. It implies a wholesale removal and non-return which some historians, e.g. Keith Windschuttle, dispute on the basis of evidence they have researched - cf his article in the Weekend Australian.

Apparently we can say sorry to the Vietnam vets for being done wrong by past governments but not to Aboriginals ?

This is a very good article, which aligns legality and morality with respect to this central issue in a refreshingly incisive analysis.

The ensuing commentary is of course polarised, but has also been (also refreshingly) quite civil thus far.

It seems to me that much of the apparent angst that some are expressing is largely attributable to the apology being to the Stolen Generations, rather than to Indigenous Australian people generally for the "sorry" history of dispossession, neglect, racism and, indeed, genocide upon which contemporary Australia was built over the past two centuries or so.

As I have expressed elsewhere in this forum, everybody who currently lives in Australia does so by virtue of the expropriation of Aboriginal land and the destruction of their way of life. Our more recent arrivals who have said they have nothing to be sorry for seem to be deliberately misconstruing what "Sorry" means in this context.

Have any of you denialists actually read the "Bringing Them Home" report?

As I understand it, in Aboriginal vernacular the word "sorry" denotes more than simple apology, and extends to empathy with the wronged or unfortunate person to whom it is expressed. This is, of course why that word is insisted upon by all Indigenous spokespeople at the moment.

When are aboriginal Australians going to say sorry for their drunkeness, criminal behaviour, rancid clothing and hygene, racism towards white people, being on the doll etc.?
Also, I think the government of Denmark should say sorry for the Viking invasions.

Faustino, I think you greatly overestimate Windschuttle's credibility on Aboriginal issues. I have read his "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Part 1 Tasmania" and found it jaundiced, bombastic and mistake-ridden. I don't know much Tasmanian history , but I managed to find a few errors in his work myself (eg relating to the career of Musquito). Ironic, given Windschuttle's derision for anyone else who makes a mistake (ie comes to a different conclusion to Windschuttle). Look here http://quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=252 for just one critique of one part of his work.

I look forward to perusing his new book, paying very close attention to his footnotes (though I certainly won't buy a copy).

The good part about the federal govt saying sorry is that we will all be able to now see if in fact the daily lives of aboriginals actually improves because of it. My guess is that no amount or either 'sorry' or monetary compensation will make any difference whatsoever to improve the important parts of the lives of aboriginals. I make that observation based on watching state and federal govertments shovelling money into aboriginal communbities for 47 years. I sincerely hope i'm wrong.

Someone raised the question of how do you distinguish an aboriginal and mentioned genetics. On the basis of that line of thought, we are all Africans, as that is where Homo sapiens came from, and thus I want my African land back. Or someone in Africa owes me a load of back-rent.

Feeling sorry and saying sorry are two different things. You can feel sorry for a person to have been involved in an accident that you witnessed but you do not have to say sorry as if you were at fault.
The media broadcasted Senator Bob Brown making clear that financial compensation is still in the pipeline.
Perhaps he should pay for it with his fellow parliamentarians, after all his predecessors caused the rot.
.
Aboriginals too are on the news making known they desire compensation!
.
So, sorry is another word for “money” it seems!
.
Lets make clear “half-cast” were not Aboriginals or Caucasian or Negro or Asian and so sorry to Aboriginals exclude them>?
.
We had a prominent Aboriginal leader claiming for years to be of the “stolen generation” only finally to be exposed as a fraud.
.
It is terrible for those who suffered injustice, regardless if they are black, white, brown, yellow, etc, in colour.
.
“Stolen” implies against the law, where as Russell Marks himself implies it was done by legislation. That is to me “forcefully removing children”.
.
I have no issue with those who were wronged to be compensated by Court verdicts, but not wasting taxpayers monies on "would-be" “stolen generations” persons who never where.
.
Current rape, murder, assaults, etc, are generally of their own makings and not related to so called “stolen generation”, no money in the world will resolve that!
.
As like the 1967 referendum it is a big con-job where those who really suffered more then likely are ignored.

when to say sorry ,
MR RUDD ,be better to say sorry for everything then their would be no more need to apoligize to anyone or anything , so say sorry to the forgotten austrlians , ,thats my request

i know you all have a problem with me asking of that but we are all human , and if any of you were raped as a child you would be asking the same a real victim of the forgotten australians
regards micheal (huffnpuff)

THE BEST APOLOGY.......

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.James 2:14

TRUE "SORRY"
8But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."

9Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house,....

WORDS don't mean a lot by themselves. Actions speak much louder.

Aboriginal stockment.. servants.. Blacktrackers ...ALL unpaid aboriginals who's services benefited their white monsters..(oops.. I mean masters) should be paid, with full interest over the full period of time from then until now, to them or their descendants..and if there are no descendants, it should be paid to a charitable trust benefitting Aboriginals......

BY THOSE (or the descendants of) who kept the money... or failing that, by the State Governments.

It's not 'when' to say sorry..its HOW it is said and done.

In my wifes language they have NO WORD for 'thanks'... because it is an 'action' only.

TRAGEDY.... the fact that the 'sorry' industry is basically a politicization of a historic incident, which was designed to bring down a government...in my view. There is a HECK of a lot more to be 'sorry' about than just the so called stolen generation.
We should ALSO have a 'sorry' day for the Maoris who were deceived into signing the 2 version Treaty of Waitangi..and for the white capitalists who, in direct infringment of it, called for 'massive white settlement' in NZ.

RussellMarks writes:

(the Commonwealth didn't even have the constitutional power to legislate "with respect to" Indigenous people until 1967);

Naturally this lack of constitutional power did not stop the hypocritical liars of the Commonwealth from undertaking all these illegal actions after it took over the NT from South Australia.

.

http://www.reference.com/browse/all/sorry

As one can see, the word 'sorry' has a great varied meaning...so by itself saying sorry is a meaningless act...no different to 'striking a pose' in the public attention as tony abott put it so it may go down in history...http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/yes-to-heal-the-generations/2008/02/11/1202578691513.html

Does sorry have any meaning to the aboriginals whom died and community disrupted by first settlers who then claimed terra nullis for a legal benefit to do away for a treaty like New Zealand maoris...no...but I expect they understood the concept of conquered by a superior force as it happened within themselves...however since then an aboriginal being treated any different to any other member of the community brings a separate issue...

As of 1970's the infant motality rate of an aboringinal child was the highest in the world...yep...that says something...we deal with 'self interests persons/groups' disrupting the balance of things for their benefit constantly...but here there was almost no balancing force against this almost genocidal proportion on aboriginal children...until increasingly good people could not follow or abide by the official silence and broke rank...brought it to public attention and since it has been improving...

bottom line....if 'sorry' is for allowing an 'imbalancing force' to wreck diruption to destruction on them...I totally agree with this for it also implies that we will 'cowboy up' quickly to act against such forces in the future...now that is meaningful to all members of this wonderful country and its varied and integrated community...

Sam

There were a couple of comments on stockmen's pay. As I understand it, up to 1967 aboriginal stockmen were well regarded and had high self-esteem, their arrangements were mutually beneficial. Once stockowners were legally required to pay them the same as non-aboriginal staff, it became cheaper to use light aircraft and helicopters than employ those stockmen. An effective, functioning arrangement was destroyed, perhaps with good intentions but certainly with no understanding. So the stockmen weren't deprived of full wages - it was low wages or nothing. The consequences of the 1967 decision seem to have been disastrous for many aboriginals and aboriginal communities. Even with good volition, acting in ignorance can be very harmful. What will the impact of tomorrow's apology be? Will it lead to better outcomes for aboriginals? Will it entrench victimhood and chasing compensation rather than getting on with life? I've never been much for symbolism, I do favour evidence-based policy.

I notice the old blow fly Leigh got the first comment up here and set the tone for yet another brian draining debate between the 'enlightened' and the social and cultural neaderthals.

God help us!

To all supporters of Indigenous people and Indigenous rights here I say thanks for keeping the faith. Our children will grow up together knowing we were together and right.

I'll be thinking about you tommorrow as well as my own mob.

Apology accepted.

Most of the posters in favour of apology(metaphorical prostration) can barely string two words together. BOAZDavid's post is complete drivel! HuffnPuff should learn to write before trying to conjure an opinion.
Is there anyone out there with a brain?

Re Sorry Times for Aust

I see that Michael of make-my-own-passport - &- fly- to-Libya fame has surfaced again. A sure sign there is some bitching to be done!

My prediction:
When the PR mob have had their choreographed crowd scenes run & re-run to primetime & school time audiences...
When the pollies have had their personal Epiphanies and exhausted all their platitudes ...
When the high powered lawyers have pegged their claims & converted their (taxpayer funded) fees into oeanside apartments...
You and me and Jackie in the Kimberley’s will be still where we are now - though probably a lot more disillusioned, & lot more divided.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka,
Makes some trenchant comments.
They should be required reading for all -esp. wantabe states-persons

Well i guess we are all allowed to have a voice here

FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS ....... WE WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN

Just letting you all know out their i will still fight on for all us Forgotten Australians ,

So for you out their that have and except the fact that we were to be allowed to be raped and abused in these.

Orphanages,Homes,Instittutions,Churh Homes,Girls Homes,Boys Homes, Remand Centres.That the goverment of australia had control of.

Of which were all States of Australia, and that of the A.C.T. And The Northern Terrioty.

So i guess Bill02 You are in favour of the predators that did some of the most sickest things against children ,in these institutions ,

And yes i do know what i am speaking about .Imagine it my brian is bigger than yours ,Because ive got Guts To Speak Out.

At Least Sorry Is Bieng Said,

Least Mr.Rudd Kept that part of the Goverments Hope.

Now To Still Continue For The FORGOTTEN AUSTRLIANS.

SORRY ALL OUT THEIR

Regards (HUFFNPUFF) Micheal

A REAL VICTIM OF THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS


WE ALL SUFFERED IN THESE INSTITUTIOAL HOMES AND OUT-OF-HOME CARE.

IS THIS SET OUT PLAIN ENOUGH FOR THE HIPPERGRITS AND THOSE WHO PROTECT THE PERPERTRATORS OF THE ABUSES WE SUFFERED.

I note that a number of posters claim that the Stolen Generations do not exist!! I've posted a short summary of the historical record at:

http://www.blognow.com.au/russellmarks/82893/The_Stolen_Generation_-_Some_Historical_Observations.html

Bolt’s historical method seems to be quite influential. He rejects all the legislation (which authorised child removal on the basis of race) and all the official contemporary reports (which described that removal), by hitting on a formula which seems infallible: Name ten children “stolen” (not merely “removed”) from their parents for purely (not just incidental) racist reasons. Attempts by various historians and other professionals to do so have been dismissed, as Bolt then injects another limitation: only official records can be relied upon (a la Windschuttle), as testimony by victims cannot be relied upon (because memory is imperfect). The official records, of course, list hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of names – most of which are merely recorded as “Daisy, aged about 13, from Point McLeay”, and a date. To some names are attached medical reports, which detail what appears, from the present century, to be sexual or other physical abuse. These reports are “proof” for Bolt that these children were actually “neglected”, just as they are now. He ignores the majority of children’s names who don’t have medical reports attached to them, as there is no evidence that they weren’t abused. He certainly ignores evidence which suggests that “neglect” was euphemistic.

Let’s compare this with an historian’s method. An historian would begin with the legislation and the contemporary reports, as well as other contemporary sources, such as newspapers, letters, etc. The historian would keep in mind that the period between the late nineteenth century and the 1950s were, in western societies, high-water marks for racialist thought, and would also be aware of who was writing those “official” records. (The historian would not simply assume a White=Bad, Black=Good dichotomy; but s/he would be alert for a possible bias in the records.) Nor would the historian accept a Written=Good, Oral/Memory=Bad dichotomy, as the anti-apologists (and that Marxist revolutionary-turned-Quadrant editor, Windschuttle): written documents can conceivably be biased, and oral testimony can conceivably be accurate.

Kevin Rudd, as Opposition Leader commenced to raise the issue about the homeless, and this was after I wrote to all federal parliamentarians that paupers and lunatics are in fact a federal responsibility as I stated” on the other hand it shows that the Commonwealth of Australia within Subsection (xxvii) as to immigration does have legislative powers to control not just the movement of aliens but also that of the "paupers" and "lunatics".
It also means that the Commonwealth of Australia would have other duties and obligations regarding the "paupers" and "lunatics" where it legislate in regard of them.”.
As such it is commendable that Kevin Rudd then took up the plight of the homeless.
However, when it came to the intervention against Aboriginals in the Northern Territory that it is unconstitutional, then Kevin Rudd ignores this and his “SORRY” is hollow.
So many people are on about “sorry” as if this is some quick fix solution to the ongoing rape, alcohol usage, violence, etc that has been going on for decades, irrespective of what any Government may have done. Just use the “stolen generation” to blame everything on it rather then to simply treat Aboriginals as humans equally as any other Australian. After all, the real issue is not the saying of sorry, the pumping of billions of dollars into communities that nevertheless has nothing to show for it but rather the solution will be to treat Aboriginals, half–cast and whomever as equal and provide for all in an equal manner. Equality in education, health care, and other provisions and likewise so equality in responsibilities! And, the latter is generally lacking.
History is littered with invadersall over the world, having robbed people of their rights. I do not seek to condone this whatsoever, but this made the world for better or worse what we are now. Saying sorry or handing out money isn’t going to do it we all (including the Aboriginals) must accept we are all equal and live accordingly!

I do not doubt that Kevin Rudd did mean his sorry speech but as a “constitutionalist” I view he had no position to make such an unqualified apology. Section51(xxvi) specifically is designed to discriminate and the 1967 con-job referendum was supported by Aboriginals that they can be discriminated against. As such the “never again” is hollow in particular where we have Kevin Rudd supporting the Northern Territory intervention. The Aboriginal-and-Torres-Strait-Islands-Act is unconstitutional as it deals with more then one race, which is constitutionally not permitted. The Racial-Discrimination-Act is unconstitutional as it is against the general community not constitutionally permitted. Aboriginals like the abuse of Section 51(xxvi) to discriminate albeit unconstitutionally in their favour. No complaints then! Personally I oppose discrimination but as a “constitutionalist” I have no choice but to accept that Aboriginals themselves pursued the 1967 “yes” vote for being discriminated against!
Neither can we by way of Section 128 of the constitution amend the preamble to recognise Aboriginal traditional ownership because the preamble is not within the grasp of Section-128-referendum powers as is neither to turn the Commonwealth of Australia, a “POLITICAL UNION” into some independent country. This post does not allow me to set out all relevant details regarding the issue save to say I have covered this extensively already in previous published book in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series.
Kevin Rudd may wish to push his own wheelbarrow of goodies he may desire to seek to hand out to others but if legislation is made by a Parliament then it was done for a reason at the time. We may not agree in today’s society what then occurred but likewise will future generations to certain legislative provisions now enacted.
Why is it that the removal of a child from an Aboriginal-single-mother- is to be apologised for but not for the removal of a child of a non-Aboriginal-single-mother?
Get rid of Subsection 51(xxvi) racial-discriminatory-powers. Failing to get rid of the Northern Territory intervention is another clear demonstration of talking with a split tong. Say one thing and do another.
Realistically, it was a show, that is all.

From memory, every single one of the 41 communities in the NT investigated revealed the existence of sexual abuse of toddlers and childen. In some cases children raped children. Should the Australian or NT government remove those abused children from those communities? If so, where are they to be removed to and for how long? Or should nothing be done to rescue the innocent children and instead a blind eye turned to this epidemic of abuse perpetrated by aboriginals? Will other aboriginals and non aboriginals say 'sorry' to the abused children for the wrong that has been perpetrated by aboriginals? In future times will those abused children themselves demand a 'sorry' for NOT being removed from horrific abuse? I hope that together a solution can be found.

The K-Rudd Crew(as I like to call them) do NOT apologise on my behalf, nor do I suspect, on behalf of the BULK of right thinking individuals. How DARE he presume to speak for all of us without mandate, implied or otherwise. Democratic principle in a constitutional monarchy would dictate that a referendum be held to determine the will of the people and give them some say in the wording of any statement.
Victimhood and monetary gain is being promoted here, nothing else. There is NO doubt that if you dug deep enough into EVERY persons past, you would find a time when one of their ancestors clashed with another person and peaceful settlement was not possible, resulting in heartache and loss for one. Nevertheless, people got on with it.
Mr Marks, you draw a long bow by applying a vernacular, populist term(stolen generation) to individuals taken as a result of state legislature which was designed to protect those accepted neither as Aboriginal or white. How conveniently socialist of you...K-Rudd would love it.
Apology? NO apology necessary...

tRAKKA - "Socialist"? I think you'll find that "liberal" is a much better descriptor of my views. And there is one hell of a lot more than "victimhood and monetary gain" being "promoted" here. How can you be so sure of this claim?

While I'm at it, how can you be so sure that the "bulk of right-thinking individuals" does not support an Apology? (If you want people to completely avoid populist language, I'd suggest you not use such terms.) And just why would this issue warrant a referendum? Australia's is a liberal democratic system, its legislature is representative. You don't present any reason to back a referendum - except an implied expectation that the majority would be ignorant and prejudiced enough to reject the Apology. Of the hundreds of historians who have researched this history, only Keith Windschuttle - whose unsound method rejects oral history and puts enormous faith in the legitimacy of some contemporary written records (while completely ignoring others) - has concluded that there is no case to answer.

Your sophistry regarding the "heartache and loss" in "EVERY person[']s past" is fascinatingly self-delusionary. Have you even engaged with this issue? You imply incredible ignorance of basic human psychology. How would you normally expect someone who was taken from her mother, who was in turn taken from *her* mother, and who has grown up in a society in which she's a minority in almost every way, to conduct her life and affairs? Would you honestly say to her face: "Get over it"?

And your blind ignorance of institutional racism is, in the present century, staggering. Are you so dense as to expect to see “We hate black people” helpfully tagged to every incidence of racism? Are you completely unaware of the way Australian legislatures, aware of international anti-racist opinion but fully intending to maintain the “White Australia” policy, removed explicit references to race in legislation dealing with, say, child welfare, but merely described how they saw Indigenous culture under concepts like “Neglected child”? Please read the text of the Child Welfare Ordinance 1957 (Cth), s5, for an example.

RussellMarks - Are you suggesting there is something wrong with racism? If so, what? 'The belief that some races are different or superior to others' is one of the three listed uses of racism in the dictionary. I can see from your grammar and logic that you are border-line retarded, however you cannot be so stupid as to claim 'all men are equal'. Then again, perhaps you are.

I can't wait to put all the liberal perverts in camps and force them to break rocks into smaller rocks and dig holes and fill them. You scum have destroyed my country. We need to bring back the white Australia policy, but make an exception for Jews who are one of the 'noble races'(Greeks, Romans, Jews and Western Europeans).

Bill02, So what makes you more superior than non-white people?
And what do you base your evidence on?

Rainier - I didn't say I was superior to non-whites. I didn't say I was white either. Next time read what is actually said and don't make assumptions. It just makes you look stupid.

Also, I refer you to the work of Dr Frank Ellis who has proven that blacks are less intelligent than whites. Surely you don't need evidence to prove something so obviously self-evident.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka - we let you in. Why? Presumably, despite your rantings, you think that, once allowed you had been allowed in, the dominant culture should accept you. Constitutionally, of course. And more than likely, we did. Constitutionally, Eastern European migrants, no matter how many Inspector Rex,er, Inspector Gadget potboilers they might have written and tried to flog, were never covered under the Flora and Fauna Act. Indigenous Australians were, in my lifetime. How would you, constitutionally, have liked to be thus dismissed?

Do be quiet. You are, constitutionally, a bigot, and a fool. We let you in. Why?

Fascinating - but perhaps unsurprising - how today's truly historic event has brought the racist trolls out from under their rocks.

Yes indeed CJ,

I'd say many of them joined just to spew their toxic bile out from inside their rotten souls.

They get excited reading their on crap. Very anal people.

Yes Russell, "socialist". You're a PhD candidate writing a thesis on the Australian Left(i.e Labor) at Latrobe University for goodness sake! Home of the ALP club et al.
Referendum? Because the apology is not a matter of legislation, moreso, one of conscience. Giving an apology is one thing but as it stands, the power to hand over money is at the discretion of the government and they should seek guidance from their electors as to terms applied, don't you think? Or do you prefer the socialist view where the state is responsible for everything and no-one is responsible for the state?
Oh and the inference of ignorance and prejudice on the part of the majority was yours, not mine. Read the following before you start foaming...
An apology, or admittance of negligence, other than when related to torts, does not prejudice the apologiser to be liable to compensation, yet here we have claims made before the apology has been accepted!"Monetary gain", Russ.
The giving of an apology as part of the reconciliation process would and should have an acknowledgement of acceptance of said apology from those lawfully wronged, or at least, someone speaking on behalf of the aggrieved. Where is that?
Sophistry, eh? Big word for you. My geneaology stretches back to the Isle of Thanet in Kent, the inhabitants of which were said to have originated in Jutland, so I daresay, that pre-history, an altercation such as I described stood a better than fair chance of occurring. In addition, my partner is Assyrian, and her family history is full of incidents where confontation led to discontinuance of a family tree branch. Trust that satisfies.
It's not for me to tell anyone to "get over it". That's their own determination and responsibility. Neither would I have expectation of anyone, other than that they conduct themselves appropriately to the dominant social norm. In the case you mention, reality is, it's her choice to consider herself an oppressed minority. "Victimhood", Russ.
People who subscribe wholeheartedly to the concept of racism are more apt than others in seeing incidence of racism. I don't.

Bill02,

Dr Frank Ellis? Who?

My search turned up nobody.

Is he a scientist?

What are his quals?

If he is an academic - how well is he supported by his peers and their scientific publications?

What are your qualifications to make such calls?

Do you use lubricants to remove your head from your lower orifice or are you professional contortionist?

How's your pension Bill?

My this is a happy friendly thread, how are we all, feeling “sorry” for ourselves?

Rainier “set the tone for yet another brian draining debate between the 'enlightened' and the social and cultural neaderthals.”

I know you claim to be one of a primitive peoples, rainier but I do think you might have progressed from being “social and cultural Neanderthals”.

“I 'll be thinking about you tommorrow as well as my own mob.

Apology accepted.”

I will continue to do my best at being an individual, irrespective of my “complexion”.

No apology needed.

Oh and what % of “mob” are you, rainier?
(Certainly not the spelling mob, if the errors in your posts, as I quoted, is any guide.)

CJ Morgan “how today's truly historic event has brought the racist trolls out from under their rocks.”

I previously commented to your troll origins, nice to see you acknowledge it.

Anomie “Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka - we let you in. Why?
. . . Do be quiet. You are, constitutionally, a bigot, and a fool. We let you in. Why?”

May I ask, what accident of fate left you here to display your gracelessness?

And Gerrit has the same right as you to express his heart felt views and opinions. Whilst that may disturb your personal mindset it is too bad.

Get used to this, we are all equal and all should expect the same citizen rights. The encouragement of a special class of citizen, based on ethnicity is the sort of scumbag thinking which men who rode around in white hoods and burnt crosses in front of churches promote and not the sort of beliefs which men, like Gerrit support.

PS rainier and CJ Morgan, your displays of mutual masturbation might be gratifying to the two of you but it does nothing for the rest of us. If you wish to suck and kiss up to each other, please do it in private.

Anomie I am not some Eastern European migrant, and so you got that assumption wrong.
QUOTE
How would you normally expect someone who was taken from her mother, who was in turn taken from *her* mother, and who has grown up in a society in which she's a minority in almost every way, to conduct her life and affairs? Would you honestly say to her face: "Get over it"?
END QUOTE
Posted by RussellMarks, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 7:03:47 PM
.
Well Russel Marks apply this to non-Aboriginal single mothers and they all suffered likewise but didn’t get an apology.
.
One should ask why only an apology to aboriginals and not all mothers and the children removed?
.
Again, while personally I oppose racism as a constitutionalist I have to admit was Section 51(xxvi) was designed to discriminate against “inferior coloured races” as the framers of the Constitution referred to. Regretfully, Aboriginals rather then remaining equal to the so-called “white man” decided they too wanted to joint the “inferior coloured races” and for this supported the 1967 referendum to specifically permit racial discrimination.
.
Are we now having to apologise what Aboriginals themselves demanded, that is to be discriminated against?
.
My parents always educated me that all people are equal regardless of colour of skin, race, religion, etc. In Australia however Aboriginals demand equality while also demanding positive discrimination having their own legal processes, etc.
.
They should make up their minds if they want equality or not, as they cannot have both.
.
I for one do feel sorry for any person, Aboriginal or not, who has been wronged, but it does not mean I have to apologise for something I did not participate in.
.
If we deal with all people, being Aboriginal or not, that they are equal and should be dealt with as equal then we will get a far better result then saying “sorry” and then still persist in racial discrimination!

Col Rouge: "PS rainier and CJ Morgan, your displays of mutual masturbation might be gratifying to the two of you but it does nothing for the rest of us. If you wish to suck and kiss up to each other, please do it in private."

Like I said in the other thread, you really are an offensive, racist bastard aren't you?

Hello Russ? You there, Russ? Geez, it's gone awful quiet....
CLANG! Goodness gracious!... a pin dropped...;-}

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, very adequately expressed the view which I agree with.

All people are equal under a legal system commonly depicted, for a reason, as wearing a blind-fold.

I would note particularly Gerrit’s statement

“Aboriginals demand equality while also demanding positive discrimination having their own legal processes, etc.

They should make up their minds if they want equality or not, as they cannot have both.”

The only way of implementing “affirmative action” is to “affirmatively discriminate” against someone.

Whilst historic injustice is something to regret, no good will come from legislating for future injustice (unequal citizen rights or representation).

CJ Morgan “Like I said in the other thread, you really are an offensive, racist bastard aren't you?”

And like I said to you on that thread

“Would you like me to apologise for interpreting your application of English correctly, instead of interpreting it based on your own bastardized colloquialism?”

I would note on that thread you declared I could not be or become an aboriginal or be entitled to the same level of government benevolence as it applies to aboriginies.

Re in response to my observation “So since my daughter was born on Australian soil, I take it she is “aboriginal” ?

And CJ Morgans response

“And your daughters could only be Aboriginal if you'd "mated" with an Aboriginal woman, but for some reason I doubt that's the case.”

Legislation which enshrines particular rights on some citizens because of their ethnicity which are not extended to all citizens, because of ethnicity is

Institutionalized racism and CJ Morgan, in tandem with his fellow-traveler, rainier, is what he is advocating.

Racism, individually expressed or institutionalized is an offense for any person with a conscience or worthwhile character.

CJ Morgan and rainier might have missed out on acquiring conscience and character but that does not mean we should encourage such deficiencies. We should pity them for their existence, deficient in some of the most basic and rewarding human experiences.

So with that sense of pity in mind, I will say "Sorry"

CJ Morgan and rainier, yours is a Sorry existence.

Bill02 - I realise that you won't respond to reason. You seem to have reached the conclusion that most of the problems of modern society are attributable to the immigration of non-white immigration and to the treatment of "race" as a social construct rather than as a biological fact - just as socialist revolutionaries have convinced themselves that most of the problems of modern society are attributable to capitalism. You might ask yourself why neither of these "panacea" views has ever caused anything but mass bloodshed.

tRAKKA - Still not sure how my writing a thesis on the Australian Left (FYI I'm not writing on the ALP) at LTU is evidence of my "socialism".

Re your Apology-Referendum argument, I must confess I'm unsure as to what your argument is. Do you favour a referendum for an Apology, or in order to determine whether compensation should be payable? (Neither, in my opinion, requires a referendum - referenda are required only when Constitutional change is proposed.) Ideally, I'd love more of a "direct democracy", where people have more input into day-to-day political activity. That's is a different (or at least more expansive) debate than the one we're having. Within the bounds of a "representative liberal-democracy" (which is what we have now), the idea of "prescriptive" politics - the party that wins the election produces change by introducing potentially divisive political acts, but manages that divisiveness ethically by way of education and showing respect to opposing viewpoints - has much to commend it.

I would have thought that the Apology had been generally accepted by those aggrieved. This seemed rather obvious to me, judging by the sentiments expressed by Stolen Generations members following the Apology. I'm unsure as to what you're saying here.

I'm also unsure as to what relevance your genealogy has. If you're suggesting that you and your family turned out okay despite all that your people(s) historically endured, then - congratulations, I guess! (I see this as an argument for an Apology, rather than as one against.) But within the context of Australian society and history, the situation is that particular cultural groups were systematically broken by successive policies of the state. One such policy was the forced removal of the children of those groups, for which the state is now Apologising.

Finally, I find the argument that "it's her choice to consider herself an oppressed minority" perplexing. A major, genocidal wrong is committed against a people, and members of that people have the "choice" to "consider" themselves oppressed?? Seems like major justificatory logic to me.

RussellMarks; What on earth are you talking about? I never mentioned immigration. A social construct? Suggestion; if you cannot refute my assertions, and you are out of your depth, pretend I said something else and then refute that.

'You seem to have reached the conclusion that most of the problems of modern society are attributable to the immigration of non-white immigration(sic{?}) and to the treatment of "race" as a social construct rather than as a biological fact'.

Contrary to your assertion that I 'won't respond to reason', I am willing and able to back up everything I say with evidence. And to Rainier, who says he/she cannot find any mention of Dr Frank Ellis; try typing in his name in Google and then press ENTER. You will be presented with 10 sites, all of which refer to the evidence I sited. Simple really when you know how.

Bill02 (Wednesday 13 February): "You scum have destroyed my country. We need to bring back the white Australia policy"

Bill02 (Monday 18 February): "I never mentioned immigration"

Er, what was the 'White Australia' policy about, if not immigration?

Wasn't Frank Ellis the previously unknown lecturer in Russian and Slavonic Studies at Leeds University, who achieved his 15 minutes of notoriety a couple of years back for being sacked for his expression of clearly racist views in a university publication?

If so, what possible light can such a dildo bring to a discussion of Sorry Day in Australia?

Back under your rock, racist troll.

CJMorgan;
Yes I did mention the white Australia policy, however I was expressing incredulity at RussellMark's statement that I 'seem to attribute all of the problems of modern society to immigration'. My support for the white Australia policy is based on my belief that mass immigration is a racist policy as all cultures are destroyed in the 'melting pot'.

I notice that you have been unable to refute any of my assertions and throwing insults at me is your only resort. Your attempt to discredit Frank Ellis was purile and with each new statement you make, your ignorance becomes more apparent.

Dr Frank Ellis is not the only academic who has proven this theory. I refer you to Dr Hans Eysenck, the most frequently cited academic in science journals. He has been assaulted numerous times for presenting his findings, and whenever he attempted to speak he was shouted down. Here is a quote from him that I feel is very pertinent:

'I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts.'

Lastly, why must you discriminate against us trolls? I look forward to your apology.

PART 2-CONTINUED FROM Monday, 11 February 2008 3:06:11 PM
As such unless there exist already a specific definition to define what is an Aboriginal any apology seems to me worthless to refer to “Aboriginals” where no one knows what it really means in legal terms.
As I understand it to be, there are for example Caucasian born Australians who call themselves being Aboriginals because they are native born Australians.
As such the physical appearance itself does not determine if one is an Aboriginal or not and neither race background.
The Framers of the Constitution recognised in their debates that there were Aboriginals residing in Asia, and as such using the term to refer to “Aboriginals” which could include Aboriginals who migrated at some time, as then Caucasians did, to Australia and then to somehow exclude or include them would be racism against Negro’s, Caucasians, etc, who also were “stolen” “forcefully removed”.
I understand that when an so called Aboriginal was convicted for breach of law entering a while only pub the Supreme Court of Victoria overturned the conviction on the basis that it had not been established that the person was an Aboriginal. The fact that a person may look like an Aboriginal does not mean the person is an Aboriginal.
Why should a half-cast child be termed Aboriginal if its other part was Negro, Caucasian, etc?
What governs if a person is termed Aboriginal or otherwise?
In my view any apology made by the Federal Parliament should be as to “forcefully removed children” regardless of their race. To do otherwise would cause division within the population and rather then being a healing process between different races the apology would fuel already existing problems.
In my view, without a so to say cast iron definition if what is an Aboriginal the federal parliament has no business to specify Aboriginals. Hence it would require first to legislate what is a person of an Aboriginal race. Is the paternal or maternal heritage governing this for example?

TO BE CONTINUED

PART 3- CONTINUE FROM Monday, 11 February 2008 3:06:11 PM
.
Because Parliament has no executive powers it means it cannot held accountable for any wrongdoings against its laws.
It merely legislate. It cannot be held liable for unconstitutional legislation unless it can be demonstrated that it deliberately and knowingly or reasonable ought to have known that it legislated to cause harm well aware there was no legislative powers for this.
If such intentions cannot be shown then any harm flowing from its legislation can only be expressed as to regret that its legislative provisions were inappropriately used, without that the Parliament itself takes responsibility for this.
While a Federal Government can make an apology it can only do so for the actions taken buy itself and cannot apologise for actions taken by some Executive Government decades ago in regard of which it had any powers.
The Commonwealth of Australia is unlike any other system operating in the world, albeit can be compared to some extend with that of the European Union. The Federal Government unlike the Government of the United Kingdom is very limited in its powers even so its system has been much duplicated from the British system. For example, British Ministers have the so-called “Henry VIII powers” not existing for Ministers of the Commonwealth of Australia. British Ministers have unlimited powers within their portfolio, again not existing with their Australian counterparts as their powers are limited to “peace, order and good government”.
In my view any apology should be directed therefore to all and any children “forcefully removed” as to exclude Caucasian, Negro’s, etc, would cause uncalled division and if anything may inspire hatred.
The harm done to a child being “forcefully removed” is as much applicable to a Caucasian child then to a Negro child, an Asian Child, etc, as is to an Aboriginal child.
The term “stolen” refers to unlawfully removed children and would therefore not include “forcefully removed children”.
.
TO BE CONTINUED

Barking, Mr G H S-H, just barking. Not an English town.

Russell,
I get the message. You're unsure...about a few things...
OK, no ALP. Just a proposition on communism and/or socialism generally as applied to Australian politics.
It's your interest... a pre-disposition, if you like. No worries...forget that:-}
The primary request from the indigenous activists was for the word "Sorry" to be said.
I, like perhaps many others, are indeed sorry that some people have had to experience challenge and trauma in their lives, be it illness, accident or other misfortune.
That we, the current generation, in this instance, should "apologise" and by use of that word assume moral responsibility for the actions of a previous generation is anathema logically, as well as contrary to basic Judaeo-Christian belief.
To answer your question then, I contend that any statement made on our behalf should have expressed our sympathy for the situation that occurred as being now determined, in hindsight, unfavourable, but not unlawful. Decisions were taken which AT THE TIME were deemed to be in the best interests of those involved. Australia then is not the Australia of now. We are not to blame. We, therefore, do not need to apologise. I hope you can empathise with that.
Why advocate change through divisive action? (That's the state being responsible for everything and..well you know the rest) Why not refer the matter to the community via plebiscite, even if not required by law, to foster inclusion, particularly on such a matter? Arbitrary pronouncements such as has been made are not inclusive, despite your efforts to say otherwise.

You having imagined something does not necessarily make it so, as you have said to me. You fail to address the point of an official acknowledgement, from a spokesperson for the aggrieved, expressing acceptance. Is there no lawfully entitled spokesperson available to make a public statement for the record?
If you can't work out the genealogy example, bad luck, I guess. I believe you are just being obtuse. It speaks of accountability, adaptability and determination, in spite of circumstances.(end of part 1)

(part2)
It's your prerogative to view my statement re:"..oppressed minority" as justificatory logic. I cannot make a choice for anyone. That's their business. Part of basic human psychology, as you'd know.
As I have done nothing for which to seek absolution, you can't justify your view. It predicates you being predisposed to a mostly contrary position.
Genocidal? In what sense? Race suicide? Umm, that's self-inflicted so I guess it must be ....race murder, right? Who got murdered, figuratively speaking? Half caste Aboriginals? Then wouldn't that be race suicide, not murder?
No-one got murdered. People still carry their identity of race and place. Even you. Australian, no doubt, but fully aware of your heritage, no matter what might be done to you. Can I ask, when have you ever in your life sought an apology for anything, seriously? If not, why not? Perhaps resolve to just "get on", inculcated through generations of Celts, Angles/Saxons and other Teutonics having at each other. Maybe, maybe not...

anomie: "Barking, Mr G H S-H, just barking. Not an English town"

Quite so, anomie. There seems to be an awful lot of it on these threads about the overdue apology.

However, given this morning's news that Rudd's approval rating is over 70%, we can be quite sure that all this yapping, whining and barking is coming from a small but noisy minority.

Bill02 - Ellis and his local variant, Andrew Fraser (formerly of Macquarie), are representative of a tiny minority of voices amid an overwhelming consensus on the "science" of racial characteristics (though Fraser is less credible, given that he's a constitutional lawyer by training, and not a biological scientist). But let's proceed on the basis that they just might be the Copernicus and Galileo of their generation, and on the liberal assumption that they have the right to be heard.

In his 2001 article "Race, marxism and the 'deconstruction' of the UK" (published in the journal of the ideologically-driven CSES), Ellis assumes that nations emerged out of a German-romanticist "volk" culture (rather than, for example, a French civic culture espoused in the writings of Rousseau): but even Herder's ideal nation was conjured up by selecting various aspects of what was presented as cultural history and re-presenting them in particular ways. Of course, this is how heritage works everywhere, and I do not intend to dismiss its value simply by identifying its origins. But it's important to understand that Ellis's concept of "nation" is - and was from the beginning - contestable.

He assumes away the violent disagreements between what were once called the various "races" of Britain (the Celts, the Normans, the Saxons, etc - and who can forget the religious wars?), and nominates non-British immigration as the cause of "racial" conflict. Other than multiculturalism, his main target in this article seems to be the "illiberal neo-Marxism that underpins so much of multiculturalism", without recognising that multiculturalism emerged as much out of liberal theory as it did out of socialist. Just because he cites a handful of scholars who make the same assumptions is no "proof" of anything: the authors in the recent neo-Leninist collection "Lenin ReLoaded" do exactly the same thing.

He assumes the existence of a conspiracy designed to “destroy” Britishness, failing to recognise that multiculturalists merely have a different concept of what a “nation” is (and should be). It follows that, for Ellis, “genetics” (modern-day eugenics?) is vital, whereas for multiculturalists, it is irrelevant.

tRAKKA - I've posted a response to your comments at

http://www.blognow.com.au/russellmarks/83121/Debate_Stolen_Generations_Apology.html

(I've posted our whole debate - my most recent reply is at the bottom) as it's too long to post here!

PART 4- CONTINUE FROM Monday, 11 February 2008 3:06:11 PM
We had people claiming to be of Aboriginal descent who then went, so to say, on the band wagon claiming to be of the so-called “stolen generation” only later to be discovered that in fact their parent had handed this person (as a child) over. Therefore there is a grave danger that the term “stolen generation” is bias and misused and abused and does not reflect at all what really the apology is about.
Why indeed should the Federal Government somehow express an apology as to Aboriginals but not of half cast or others who were forcefully removed?
I do not belong to any political party and so my views are expressed as a constitutionalist and not seeking to reflect the views of any political party.
A misconceived/ill-conceived apology is not going to resolve anything but rather is likely to create more resentment!
END PART 4- CONTINUE FROM Monday, 11 February 2008 3:06:11 PM

The concentration on the so-called “STOLEN GENERATION” in my view is an absurdity as we would have done better to deal about the murdering, etc, of Aboriginals since British settlement.
While “anomie” and “CJ Morgan” may be more interested to push their own wheelbarrow, so to say, then bothering about the slaughtering of Aboriginals since British settlement, perhaps because “compensation” may not be an issue as to those who were actually murdered, I for one rather be open minded

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka - It's good to see people with down syndrome having a go. Good for you!