The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Schmalz

Schmalz

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Steven,

You stated:

"A judge who allows gang rapists to go free. ... A judge who gives credence to the idea that getting an 11 year old to suck your penis MAY be inducting the child into "men's business!"

Two elders have come out and stated that this had no fact in "men's business".

I have only heard of one "particular" rite practiced - and in a very small group, and in a very remote area - which fell under "men's business"; and this was a once-only event during some initiation, and between legally consenting adults.

I have never heard of child abuse, of any sort, as a practice under the umbrella of "men's business." Hopefully, more elders will raise their voices and be heard.

I agree with you, about this judge. If a person suffers as the consequence of another's action, even if it be accidental, or done in innocence, the person who committed it is liable. This is law. I believe that this is also imbedded in indigenous tribal law.
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 17 February 2008 12:49:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I found this backgrounder on Mary Hooker of the "Stolen Generations Alliance."

See:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23204370-25717,00.html

SNIP

Take Mary Hooker, presented by the Sydney Morning Herald this week as a representative of the "stolen generations" - one of the black children stolen by white racists for no good reason.

Hooker, a spokesman for the Stolen Generations Alliance, told her story in a video clip on the Herald's website, during which the camera panned over documents relating to her case.

I froze the picture to read what I could. And here is the true story of this "stolen generations" child.

Hooker's mother was in fact taken to hospital unconscious from an overdose of pills, and Hooker says she didn't wake up for two weeks.

She left behind her 12 children in a house that welfare officers found had plenty of rubbish but little food: "The only food available was three sausages and a small piece of steak."

There is no mention of any man in the house, but the documents show the dad of seven of the children was a prisoner at the Mount Mitchell Afforestation Camp, a low-security jail.

There is also no mention of abuse in what documents I could read, but Hooker last week admitted on ABC radio "there was also abuse going on in the community", and that she had been "raped".

END SNIP

Many posters will object to this backgrounder because it was written by the "notorious" Andrew Bolt. If Mr. Bolt has his facts wrong feel free to post a correction here.

Was Ms Hooker stolen? Or was Ms Hooker rescued?

Here is a link to the “Stolen Generations Alliance.”

http://www.sgalliance.org.au/contact1.htm
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 17 February 2008 7:58:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I doubt the viability of remote Aboriginal communities. It may be that salvation for many, not all, Aborigines lies in moving to cities as have many Australians. The jobs, the opportunities, are mainly in the cities.
Stevenlmeyer,
Depends on what one perceives as "OPPORTUNITY". An opportunity is when someone gets into a situation which could prove to be suitable for that person. Some people are unable to see such a situation. Other's are. Many think they do. Many more think it's better for others because it suits themselves. I have chosen to spend my live in a remote area because I appreciate the opportunity of being able to remain an individual, something not possible in cities. my gripes is that so many people go to remote areas because of job opportunities which suit them but it doesn't suit the community they move to. I know many people in remote communities who are fed up with having to live the constant frustration of dealing with the well-meaning who only show up because of the opportunity to earn money. Most of those whom they're supposed to be "helping" do not want that interference because it is of no help to them. Unfortunately, the Experts are not expert enough to comprehend that not everyone wants to live in an automatic sheep station called Mainstream.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 17 February 2008 9:16:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

If you're able to earn a living in a remote area then that's great.

Plainly many Aborigines cannot.

As I said in my original post:

"If the remote communities are to become viable the locals are going to have to display considerably more entrepreneurship than they have shown hitherto. They are also going to have to go out and sell their communities to business as investment destinations."

If some Aborigines will not move to areas where they may be able to earn a living then they have to entice those opportunities to come to them.

There do not seem to be any other options.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Sunday, 17 February 2008 11:33:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ginx,

I just noticed your comment. Aborigine - Muslim. You have hit the nail on the head!

Should we accept codes which admit of executions of 9 year girls because of cultural sensitivity? Would this judge bow to this cultural code?

One could argue at what point ...? ... matter of degree ...

When a judge accepts child-abuse because of "perceived cultural sensitivity", we should call for a re-evaluation of our legal system.

Possibly this judge, and others like her, tip-toeing round "notions of cultural sensitivity", would argue that the government can provide psychiatric counselling for the victims.

Is this political correctness gone mad?

At least the British in India brought an end to the practice of suttee. No Indian has raised
their disapproval of the enforcement of this prohibition.

I am unable to see why sex-offenders in communities can’t be removed. This would seem a priority - absolutely essential. In the white community, many families remain quiet when this is occurring, because they may be dependent upon him/her in some way, such as a male provider. This does not seem a plausible argument in indigenous communities. Without removal of one of the main problems, any “assistance” won’t even amount to a “band-aid”.

When known child offenders move into a white community, they aren’t exactly welcomed. Why should they be permitted to stay and re-offend on indigenous communities?

Just a passing thought ... The Goddess of Justice, represented as a blind-folded woman, is the symbol of our legal tradition. Originating in ancient Egypt, adopted by the Greeks, then the Romans; even representations in ancient India, it remains today the symbol of justice throughout the world.
Posted by Danielle, Sunday, 17 February 2008 2:51:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Danielle,
It is not only judges that tip toe on issues of 'cultural sensitivity'. Our Federal and State Governments do also on at least one issue I am aware of.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been carried out here for many years. It is against the law but no one has ever been charged. Why, when one hospital alone treats one patient a week for post FGM problems. What about other hospitals and medical clinics, and how many girls do not receive any medical treatment. Most of these girls are born here, they are Aussie girls. It is child abuse but nothing is done.

My last correspondence from the NSW Health Minister said they have an education programme (going on for 14 years) and it is 'culturally sensitive'. I don't wish to start a debate about this, on this thread, and there may well be other matters where some sections of the community are treated differently than the mainstream.

Are aboriginal child offenders allowed back into the communities? Maybe those communities do not view the offences as serious as anglo communities. I shudder to think what would happen to an offender if he/she came back into a small anglo community.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the girl victim of that NT abduction, imprisionment and rape had to leave her community because she was harrased by community people. Now that is hard to understand.
Posted by Banjo, Sunday, 17 February 2008 7:09:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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