Following on Polycarp's thread perhaps someone out there would care to debate the following.
In South Australia there has recently been a court case in which someone was convicted of manslaughter. The offender 'lashed out in anger'. In doing so he mistakenly hit a man he believed to be someone else but who was innocent of anything apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He died after hitting his head on the ground.

The offender identifies himself as 'aboriginal' and was sentenced to 3 and a half years after a sentencing conference in which an aboriginal welfare agency participated. His 'aboriginality' was taken into consideration in sentencin.

I do not wish to comment on the rights or wrongs of this particular case but I would raise the question that a writer to the Advertiser raised, "If we give special consideration in sentencing to someone who identifies as coming from a particular group in society, do we also need to give special consideration to other groups (as opposed to individuals? If we do, where do we draw the line? If we don't give particular consideration to other groups, why not? What are the implications for society?"

If we havent got a proper system to look after special groups then we have to be more lenient.

For 200 years we have overlooked the Aborigines giving them the scraps and not the love...not the real love that keeps a people alive.
Even K Rudds great SORRY was tinsel and sad.
It had a "now go and die" feeling to it.

Special groups would also include the Jewish people.

They have been persecuted for centuries by inumerrable cultures (click on Pogoms and Holocaust).

Neither do we look after them...and not much here on OLO.

Theres has been an increasing number of anti-jewish articles of late...i.e. 'Israel has really overstepped the line' and 'Should jews leave Israel' just two of them.

GY needs to monitor better.

Anti-semitism spreads like wildfire and so it is, all over the world in early 2009.
And all Israel is doing is trying to survive when everyone wants to kill them.

Until GY does filter the hate more...Im absent from OLO.

Adios chappies.

Gibo, what garbage.

With your namby-pamby approach we will end up with uour "special" groups who can commit murder, & get away with it. It appears some can all ready get away with manslaughter.

Kennedy said it all with his "ask not what your country can do for you" speach. These people will never become useful citizens while they are given an easy out for their excesses, by people like you.

In the same way, crimes committed under the influence of drugs, or grog, should be penalised nuch more harshly, as the offenders are very likely to get themselves into the same condition again, with the same loss of self control.

Communicat “His 'aboriginality' was taken into consideration in sentencin.”

One of the principles of English law is illustrated by the blindfold covering the eyes of the statue atop the Old Bailey, holding the scales of justice.

The implication of the statute and the law are the same,

The law is blind to the circumstances of the person before it and all are equally entitled to “blind justice”.

It avoids the older notion of the divine right of Kings and, to a degree, the separate treatment based on ones class or position in society.

It is a good principle.

Now it is inevitable that laws which are applied in one country will differ from what laws are determined in another country but the principle that all men and women will be treated equally before the law within the territories which are subject to a given set of laws is a moral as well as a legal principle.

I find the notion of some folk being treated differently because of their ethnicity, race, religion as well as their social standing, class etc a wholly offensive and divisive notion.

Hence, Australian views on aboriginal courts or the use of (Say) Sharia law for Muslims, replacing the common criminal and civil codes, is a corrosive influence on social cohesion, which will undermine the long term equal treatment of individuals before the law.

Aboriginality or religion or social standing are not justifiable reasons for different treatment.

If we are going to live as a community we should all be judged under the same laws. Ultimately it is individuals who make up a community, and as individuals we have to take responsibility for our behaviour.

If concessions are made to various groups indeed, where do we draw the line?

This does not mean that in individual cases arguments cannot be made to defend the actions of a person where there may be extenuating circumstances. But this is different to making concessions to a group whether it be by nature of their beliefs, history or culture.

Gibo,
Equating the historical mistreatment of aborigines with current political criticism of Israel is a bit of a stretch I'm afaid.

I think one of these groups is more than capable of looking after itself.

Although justice may be blind and despite all philosophical arguments to the contrary, there is still a difference in how some people are treated in the legal system, depending on social background and available financial resources.
The rate of imprisonment may give some indication.

Dear Communicat,

Each court case should be judged individually,
weighing all the mitigating circumstances.
I'm not familiar with this particular case,
but the question that needs to be asked here
is, why was the judge so lenient? Were there
any mitigating circumstances that influenced
the judge's decision?

Did the defendant actually mean to kill the man?
Was it a premeditated crime of murder?

It's difficult to give you an answer, not knowing
anything about the case, and the circumstances
involved.

The law is not a case of "one size fits all."

Many judges have exceptional discretion in determining
the severity of the sentence, and there has always
been strong evidence that the race and social class
of the offender influence judicial decisions.

For example, a "higher-status" offender may be
given a lighter sentence because the judge feels
that he's "already suffered" through damage to
his reputation and perhaps loss of employment,
finances, et cetera. That's why for example about
60 percent of white-collar criminals receive no
jail terms, and of those who do, serve one year
or less.

In part, this discrepancy reflects the greater public
fear of, and outrage at crimes that are physically directed
towards individuals (such as the crime in this thread).
But this also reflects the greater ability of high-status
people to evade the full impact of the law.

Justice wears a blindfold for a reason ...

I hoped I was being careful not to comment on the rights or wrongs of the individual case as such, rather I wanted to raise the issue of whether there are groups (as opposed to individuals) who deserve special consideration or whether (as pointed out by others) we should all be equal under the law - and where do human rights/ discrimination fit into this?
Manslaughter is usually seen as an action or actions unintended to cause death and murder as an action or actions intended to cause death - but there are also degrees of both. e.g. murder in self defence or the defence of others and manslaughter through intentional physical violence are two different issues for which the defences raised would have to be very different. They would (or should) relate to the individual circumstances, not whether the defendant belonged to a group. In the case in question the membership of a group came into consideration when sentencing the individual.
I probably have not made myself very clear!

You really don't understand the complexities of this at all, do you Gibo. You really don't understand why this makes problems.

The issue is, who chooses which groups get special status?

You?

Allow me to present - "Gibo's greatest hits: an 'Old Testament' to hypocrisy."

Part one features the dangers of muppets, gay people, the Labor party, gay people, the Chinese, gay people, masturbators, gay people, witches and gay people.

---

"If we havent got a proper system to look after special groups then we have to be more lenient... we have overlooked the Aborigines... Special groups would also include the Jewish people."

"AIDS is here to stay as long as people want to be gay or bi. Gods Creation, man, was Created to be with woman."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1045#18591

"Its a wise society that takes witchcraft seriously."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1036#18318

"The reality is Labor people are not Godly Bible people; and do not have much heart for folk beyond their own party beliefs."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=987#18681

"I cant ever condone homosexuality, not for anyone. I dont believe homosexuals are born that way. They may be affected by a spirit power as part of a curse that goes down the family line because of the lines' earlier sins."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1099#19584

"The Chinese cant be trusted StG. Working with them would only benefit their take-over of us folk."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1445#26675

"Many masturbaters have "the voice in the head' problem and live on psychiatric medication. Many gays will have a similar problem." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1099#19584

"For many years he maintained the status quo of providing education through Sesame Street then light entertainment through the Muppets. Then the change began. Then came the move over to witchcraft and evil. The Dark Crystal, then Labyrinth (one of the most bizarre films there ever was)... then The Story Teller."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1175#20838

"Civil unions need to be resisted at ALL times for the sake of the nation. With them will eventually come the adoption rights and that will lead homosexual couples into molesting their adopted childen...for this is what is in the heart."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6997#106031

Cont'd.

There is no doubt in WA the courts are a lot more lenient on aboriginals than others.In fact many times the Police don't show up for long periods when called to sort out domestic violence. My son's girlfriend witnessed a terrible flogging a few weeks ago. The Police took forever to show up. I personally caught kids vandalising and breaking into a public school. I and others knew the offenders. We were told that their was not enough evidence to convict these kids. This was outright wrong. I will no longer go out of my way to ring the Police.

Even without going into the why's and why nots people are totally blinded if they think aboriginals are treated by the law the same as white people. Many of them don't even recognize white mans and Asians and African man's law. Our gaols in WA are full of aboriginals. The proportion of law breaking is much higher than aboriginals than rest of the population. This will continue as long as we have people in Canberra who choose to believe lies about this 'peaceful' culture that existed before white man arrived. They have obviously never experienced this culture first hand. Thankfully some like Noel Pearson understand the problems and has the guts to do something about it.

Part two of our fascinating foray into hypocrisy continues.

In this spectacular finish we witness the evils of Harry Potter, gay people, Islam, people who hate gay people, Hugh Hefner, demonic people, people people, Buddha, Wiccans, Indonesia, Americans, the internet, pondering, gay people, Confucious, NASA and Catholics.

"The great global plan of Islam includes stirring up as much dissension wherever they can."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1429#26413

"I feel sorry for gay folk. They'll go underground again.
They've worked hard for a great golden age when everyone would accept them ... but it's not going to be so."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6997#106150

"How could I possibly write about Harry Potter and his witchcraft practices if I didnt have first hand knowledge of the material and what the kids were getting sucked into... Buddha, Allah, Confucious, wicca, new age, are demon distractions from God and Jesus."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1036#18344

"Like Indonesia having her spies here to plot to take us over as SOUTH IRIAN and China having her spies here to take us over as NEW SOUTH CHINA, the Vatican has her spies all over the place quietly pushing One World Church doctrine and gathering info on true Christian believers."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#119753

"Got to disagree with your pro-porners. I remember the 50's as a kid before Hugh Hefners magazine legacy etc began to warp the minds of youth en masse."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1432#26686

"The four things God has against America, as revealed in Words of Knowledge to christian prophets, are its abortion, its pornography, its greed/selfishness and its neglect of its poor. NASA thinking stands as an abomination in those last two areas.
"Actually I see the net as a great modern evil with its bombmakers, and its witchcraft folk and its over 200 million sex sites each one encouraging the sex criminal into bolder and bolder acts of darkness."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1042#18852

My personal favourite:

"I like being a fundamentalist TRTL. Its secure. I have Gods Word so I dont need to ponder."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1179#20955

Which proves fundamentalism is sanctioned ignorance. So, to the grand finale of hypocrisy, posted just today:

... wait for it.

"Until GY does filter the hate more...Im absent from OLO."

It would be wonderful if the level of discussion here on this topic was of high quality that it attracted the attention of people who had real world experience and knowledge to contribute. What a waste of time and effort.

Dear Rainier,

Your contribution has been noted!

Thanks Rainier - I intended it as a serious discussion because I believe the issue does have serious implications for the future of our society. I am sorry it degenerated into something else.

Hopefully that guy went down for manslaughter...

With the idea of different courts for different people, Aboriginal and Sharia etc... It's who/what is financing and running the country that has that right.

Rainer,
Obviously you said very little to inform us from your great intellect, experience and knowledge. Please post an intelligent contribution so we will gladly learn.

To operate as one unified society we must enforce the same laws and justice. If we want a tribal society we have peculiar tribal laws and justice. If we want tribal society and its territorial wars as operated in tribal pre-European Australia or currently in the Middle East we end up with tribal wars and tribal punishments and superstitions. Because we are currently allowing a development of tribal / gang identity we are descending into the abiss of a fractured society, where we feel injustice is allowed.

Dear Communicat,

My apologies, I misunderstood the thread.
I had assumed that because what happened
was as a result of the victim hitting his
head on the ground - that the crime here
was definitely not murder, but manslaughter.
I thought the fact that the defendant was an
aboriginal, had no bearing on the case.
Obviously, I was wrong, having re-read your
first post.

However, as you indicated -
you were not interested in discussing the
"rights" or "wrongs" of the case - but
whether certain groups (such as Aboriginals,
in this case) should get "special treatment,"
or should the law apply evenly to all?

Of course the law should apply evenly to all.
But in reality it often does. That's a fact of
the way things are.

People with money, have an advantage,
can often obtain the very best legal advice,
and get much more lenient sentences, or
simply be assigned to do "community-service" work.

People without money - have to take the lawyers
that the courts assign, and end up with much
tougher sentences.

Celebrity status, also, often plays a part in
the kind of sentences that are prescribed. Take
cases like OJ Simpson's, Michael Jackson's, Russell
Crowe's, to name a few. If you're famous - things
could work against you in some instances, - but usually they don't.
So as a group - their chances of getting conficted
as slim.

Then there's the gender issues in court cases.
Depending on the judge, men tend to get tougher
sentences than women. I don't have the statistics,
but I know that if a woman kills her child, the
judge will be far more understanding, than if
her male partner did it.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is - the law
is the law and it should be adequately applied even-
handedly. But, human nature being what it is - it
all depends on the judge and jury and who they
believe...or are influenced by.

cont'd

Also, as far as other groups are concerned...

The law is definitely not applied even-handedly.
How often are police-officers called to account
for their actions, or are even charged?

The same goes for members of the Medical Association.
How many charges are successfully brought against
doctors?

Or priests?

The lists go on and on ...

The thing I find interesting is that if one sides on ALL being actually equal, this question (group, race, etc aside)is in essence no different to Poly Carps.

It is only when one assumes "special differences" that we need different questions.

Do some people deserve more rights than others?

Communicat,

"The offender identifies himself as 'aboriginal' and was sentenced to 3 and a half years after a sentencing conference in which an aboriginal welfare agency participated. His 'aboriginality' was taken into consideration in sentencin. I do not wish to comment on the rights or wrongs of this particular case but..."

Some of my best friends are...but...".

"I probably have not made myself very clear!"

Oh, I think you have!

Spikey,

You are very unclear, are you suggesting Communicat is racist here?

Rainier “It would be wonderful if the level of discussion here on this topic was of high quality that it attracted the attention of people who had real world experience and knowledge to contribute.”

I feel rainer, despite being somewhat disadvantaged from the real world by his isolation in the ivory tower of academia, might actually be on to something.

Certainly, if we had posters who posted posts of higher quality and we attracted people who had more real world experience and knowledge -

rainier would not need to post at all.

And that could only ever be considered a good thing.

meredith,

"You are very unclear, are you suggesting Communicat is racist here?"

I think Communicat can speak for himself/herself. It was him/her who raised the issue of clarity. I merely remarked that I got the message.

its seems becuase this person was already in court on charges he didn't like what sentence he received by the judge and had assulted a by stander if the sentence is that by the law of court it still carrys a larger sentence than the individual got for what happend just becuase the person was black i feel the judge gave a sentence that they thought was right

it does not matter wether u are black white brindle or other race it depends soley on the judge on that day yes i agree the sentence was a light one for a person who ended up dying

i got 2 years straight in 1989 for assulting three new australians i claimed self defence but did not deter the judge giving me that sentence and i am white

also the judges don't take into account when a person takes the state to court for being raped and abused as a child while in state care in the 1970's

they cover up this abuse by not beleaving the victim because of their later past of which is a discrimination of the victims human rights
well in this country their should be one law for all
here in australia the little people are been walked over in our courts sysytem specially the victims

i know the new south wales goverment has been so corupt for so many years thats why victims who were abused in their state institutions are not been given any justice they sweep us under the carpet as if it never happend to us victims well wrong it happen to many of us and the goverment of n.s.w need to stand up and addmitt the truth of us victims

and stop protecting those who abused us the goverment is so corupt thats why in n.s.w they change their positions all the time so that the compliants when made to some one they never get a reply becuase they have some new person in the job

happy new year everyone

regards huffnpuff

The line was drawn by the Australian people at Federation, again in 1967.

Australians drew their line so Australia's laws subject to their Constitution shall NOT discriminate, shall NOT qualify rights and or responsibilities of ANY Australian on the grounds of race.

Australian's permitted prejudicial treatment for NON Australians on grounds of race where deemed necessary by the Parliament.

Australia's ratification of UN agreements to eliminate racial discrimination widened our Constitutional restrictions to include ALL persons.

Racism claimed as lawful is direct result from action or inaction by the Parliament.

ALL racism held lawful is direct result of treasonous dereliction of their duties by our High Court Justices.

Legal racist prejudicial behaviors continue due Parliament and the Justices cooperative behaving without rebuke.

HREOC supports identification of Australians with racial codes, fails to object, fails obtain inclusion of "DECLINE TO ANSWER" on all government forms.

Those who ask you to identify your race are the problem, not the solution.

Or do you believe that all victims of criminal attack must accept the attack to continue as a pre-condition for compensation ?

Supporters, promoters and practicers of racial discrimination must be frustrated at inauguration of President Obama with his loud, clear rejection of their failed racial separatist ideology.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?em=&pagewanted=all

Start of short extract:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

Its clear to me that many posters here do not know the history of human rights advocacy OR understand how the rights they enjoy are indeed residual from these fundamental developments in law.

For example -

In 1815, the Congress of Vienna is held by states that defeated Napoleon and International concern for human rights is demonstrated for the first time in modern history. Freedom of religion is proclaimed, civil and political rights discussed, slave trade condemned.

Indeed this nation went to war to defend these same laws and principles of human rights, law and liberty.

Good post polpak.

Foxy wrote
1. "about 60 percent of white-collar criminals receive no
jail terms, and of those who do, serve one year or less" OF CAUSE THEY BELONG TO THE PRIVILAGED RACE! Aborigines and migrants do not have any reputation and they go direct to prison!
2."People with money, have an advantage,can often obtain the very best legal advice,and get much more lenient sentences" Yah, the "justice" depends on the size of the wallet and the bank account! Do you call it justice?
3. "men tend to get tougher sentences than women" kick them! they created this crazy system!

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION-UN about Australia report
15. The Committee notes with concern that it has proved difficult for complainants, under the Racial Discrimination Act, to establish racial discrimination in the absence of direct evidence,
and that no cases of racial discrimination, as distinct from racial hatred, have been successfully litigated in the Federal courts since 2001 (arts. 4 and 6).

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Spikey, how do you know I am not 'aboriginal' or from some other minority group? (For the record mate I recently had the great honour of being invited to speak at the funeral of a very close aboriginal friend.)
Despite your comments I was putting up an issue for discussion rather than trying to comment on an individual case. I am genuinely concerned by this issue and the way we, as a society, seem to be handling it. I do not know what the answers are. I would like others to think about it and be aware of it.
It seems to me that the current trend is not one which helps people who identify themselves as 'aboriginal' or indeed a member of any minority - instead it can encourage a tenuous identification by some with a particular group for their personal advantage. This is often highly insulting to the many other good, law-abiding members of that minority group whatever it happens to be.

Communicat,

"...how do you know I am not 'aboriginal' or from some other minority group? (For the record mate I recently had the great honour of being invited to speak at the funeral of a very close aboriginal friend.)"

Mate, I recently had the great honour of being a guest at a reconciliation dinner. But I am no closer to being a Koori than before the event.

"Despite your comments I was putting up an issue for discussion rather than trying to comment on an individual case.

Communicat, you are commenting on an individual case and claiming it to represent an issue.

"I do not know what the answers are. I would like others to think about it and be aware of it." Maybe some of the other OLO posters know the "answers" better than you then? What's the point of making people aware of an "issue" when you don't know what the "answers" are unless you are open and receptive?

"It seems to me that the current trend is not one which helps people who identify themselves as 'aboriginal'..." Why the relative clause? It is only one of the usual methods of confirming Indigenous status.

"...instead it can encourage a tenuous identification by some with a particular group for their personal advantage." The key word is "some". Would you damn a whole system because "some" might use it for their personal gain?

"This is often highly insulting to the many other good, law-abiding members of that minority group..." I agree, but abolishing the system as a whole might be even a greater insult to those with a legitimate need for it..

I am sorry Sparky I didn't realise you had all the answers, or that I was making an issue (rather than example) out of a single case. I am puzzled that I am apparently racist - makes me wonder though whether some of my friends are really my friends or a figment of my imagination - and I wonder what you would have said if I had used a different example.
(I can think of a few but presume you would view issues such as intellectual disability in a different light - after all if you know the difference between right and wrong that is an end to matter is it not?)
Humble apologies Forum members. I will retire from the debate and allow Sparky to continue to provide all the answers.

Communicat: "I do not know what the answers are. I would like others to think about it and be aware of it."

Spikey: "Maybe some of the other OLO posters know the "answers" better than you then? What's the point of making people aware of an "issue" when you don't know what the "answers" are unless you are open and receptive?"

Communicat: "I am sorry Sparky I didn't realise you had all the answers...Humble apologies Forum members. I will retire from the debate and allow Sparky to continue to provide all the answers."

Spikey (real time): I didn't realise Spikey had all the answers either. Flattered though I am by Communicat handing me the role, I don't deserve it. I suspect his dummy spit is simple frustration and he'll be back in due course to help us all out with life's tricky questions.

In the meantime, please carry on regardless.

Communicat: "...instead it can encourage a tenuous identification by some with a particular group for their personal advantage."

Spikey: " The key word is "some". Would you damn a whole system because "some" might use it for their personal gain? "

Racism is the providing of gain or penalty on basis of race.

Racism is the qualification of rights and or responsibilities on basis of race.

.

The simple fact is....that when Human Rights laws discriminate in favor of one group and against another.. which happens in many ways... the 'system' must choose 'which' group will suffer.

If one groups 'Human Right', means that another group will feel insulted, disenfranchised, marginalized,threatened, annoyed, humiliated etc etc...then it is difficult to speak of 'Universal Human Rights'.

The simple fact that if you have 2 different religions..where one curses the other by name... there is a case for discrimination and hate speech. It's not a matter of 'interpretation' because any Judge who has an ounce of experience in interpreting documents will see quickly that the curse called on Jews and Christians in the Quran, is entirely consistent with the overall message and idea of 'Shirk'.

So... when a Homosexual get's annoyed that a Pastor preached against the practice in his church.... he thinks of his human right to embrace any sexual orientation he likes, AND not to be criticized about it (or.. he might think he was born that way) so..he tries to supress/oppress the human right of 'freedom of religious expression' of the Pastor.

There is no running from this.. no escaping... "Human Rights" laws without a social context and history are more trouble than they are worth.

A countries history, culture and prevailing social fabric must ALways be taken into consideration when discussing or applying so called "Human Rights"

The extreme situation might be where a country has a very clearly defined and homogenously practiced culture.. but has signed up to the convention.... then ONE migrant comes along with a different culture at odds with the host countries..then he whines about discrimination... goes to court..and wins.

Beyond rediculous.

BOAZ_David,

"Beyond rediculous." You said it, David. (Well nearly!)

I think I could make more sense out of your posts when you morphed into Polycarp.

polpak "Racism is the providing of gain or penalty on basis of race.

Racism is the qualification of rights and or responsibilities on basis of race."

Yep and that sums up why I feel disgust with all "affirmative action" strategies.

CHECK THIS UNIQUE SITE ALSO
www.nodahej.com Matrimonial Site is the worlds only Matrimonial Site for peoples who don't want to take and give dowries for their marriages.its total free site.Add your Free Matrimonial Profile Now.
http://nodahej.com