Paul,

Projection again: projecting onto others what you would do yourself, if you were inclined.

What do you understand by the verb 'diminish' ? 'Total abrogation of rights' ? Why do you do that, to lurch to an extreme ? Does it make you feel any better and save you having to think through issues, by distorting the views of others ? Do you realise that, when you do that, you put yourself in the category of 'waste of space' ?

'Diminish' in this case may mean to restrain, to restrict, to limit, somebody's current activities if they are putting someone else's rights (i.e. to undisturbed comfort) at risk. Can you understand all that ?

You have a right to undisturbed comfort, to peace of mind, not to be threatened in any way, don't you ? I don't hesitate to suggest that, if someone threatens your life or safety, Paul, then you and others are entitled to protect yourself to the full extent necessary. Necessary and no more. Necessary, Paul, before you run off to yet another extreme.

In the case of Monis, since he killed one person and was menacing the lives of others, the limits on his rights would be close to zilch. That's how it goes when you menace or kill others.

In the case of violent adolescents with very long charge sheets, it may be necessary to restrain them, or even confine them, until they have calmed down. Spit hoods ? Yes, if necessary. A restraining chair ? Yes, if necessary. Closely monitored confinement ? Yes, if necessary. But only for as long as necessary, no longer. Any complaints ?

Joe

I don't think that a Royal Commission will help. It can only officially list the problems we already know about, and make recommendations. Royal Commissions are ploy to make us thing that politicians are doing something after a public outcry. After three Commissions into aboriginal deaths in custody (first one in 1971, more or less said that it was a problem for the aborigines themselves, and was ignored). There was one in the 90's that was not acted on by politicians, and deaths rose. The whole problem continued.

The media, particularly the ABC, go from one stir to the next, then lose interest after about two weeks, at the most. They will report Commissioner Martin's findings, make a few noises, then move on to their next breathless revelation. The whole thing will be forgotten, and the politicians can heave a sigh of relief, and move on - again, and as always.

Hi ttbn,
The RC into Indigenous Deaths in custody found very early, perhaps before it formally even started, that while 22 % of all deaths in custody were those of Indigenous people, 23 % of all those in custody were Indigenous. That was back in the early nineties.

In 2016, more like 28 % of all those in custody are Indigenous. So what would you expect to be the percentage of deaths in custody who were Indigenous ? That around 28 % of all deaths in custody would be Indigenous. My perhaps faulty understanding is that the current rate is around 26 %.

Note, by the way, that percentage, or proportion, says nothing whatever about the actual number of deaths in custody.

We also know that, outside of custody, the rate of violent deaths and suicide amongst Indigenous people is many times that of the general population. So the inconvenient conclusion to be drawn (get stuck in, if you disagree) is that it is safer for Indigenous people to be in custody. Isn’t that an appalling indictment on Indigenous existence ?

Some may say, yes, but only 2.5 % of the population is Indigenous, so there shouldn’t be any more than 2.5 % of all deaths in custody to be of Indigenous people. Okay, so what if only 2.5 % of those in custody were Indigenous, not 28 %: would you say the same ? Suppose not one of those in custody were Indigenous, should the proportion or percentage in deaths in custody still be 2.5 % ? Or if, say, all of those in custody were Indigenous, should the proportion still be only 2.5 % ?

Similarly, the proportion of deaths in custody of, let’s say, Chinese or New Zealanders, should be no higher than the proportion or percentage of ALL those in custody who are Chinese or New Zealanders. Isn't that so ?

The brutality of some deaths in custody is another matter

Regards,

Joe

It was the taxpayer-funded ABC playing the racist card to make the news.

Should the victims of crime, for example assault and rape victims, be accused of 'racism' because they identify their assailant as indigenous, or more likely, point out the offender from photos and in court, who just happens to be indigenous?

Regarding that chair and spit hood that were supposed to be torture devices, the ABC journalists and producers knew better than that. What caused the ABC to present the lies then?

As far as I am aware, the ABC has yet to admit that its iconic 'Guantanamo Bay instruments of torture' are the simple, practical, RECOMMENDED, ROUTINE apparatus used in enlightened jurisdictions, in modern correction facilities.

What prevented the ABC, which has an open chequebook and umpteen journalists on staff doing SFA at any one time, from presenting a professional, detailed report? Was it laziness? Is it the ABC jumping on overseas bandwagons?

The ABC has done a very great disservice to the public, to the professionals involved in providing and improving youth correction and counselling services, to the victims of crime and finally to the offenders themselves through its gross simplification and wrong, misleading inferences.

Since some fool mentioned Indigenous suicide rates, here is a brilliant article by my friend Anthony Dillon, recently published in Quadrant:

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2016/07/dillon/

Suicides, especially of young women, are often (usually ?) the consequence of abuse, especially sexual abuse - let's be honest, rape. On Friday I was mourning my wife's best friend, whose birthday it was, and who had topped herself back in 1990. That followed the suicide of HER best friend, for the same reason. But in a different 'community'.

It's hard to realise how tiny one's world is if you come from a 'community' of 100 or 150 people, and what the impact on you may be if something brutal happens. Such 'communities' are too small even for the exercise of ordinary social activities such as joining a netball team - there just aren't enough people to keep one going.

And most people are so inter-related that the abuse of one girl means that pretty much everybody knows quickly all about it in fine detail, but to 'keep the peace', everybody is inclined to do nothing whatsoever about it. So those poor girls were totally bereft of any support, and probably prey to further abuse.

If you think life is not too safe for Indigenous people in custody, don't kid yourself: it's pretty lousy outside of custody as well.

Joe

Aboriginal 'communities' will sooner or later have to face up to enormous social problems: generating work where it may be impossible, getting kids to school (what's the point if they never have to work ?), protecting young people from abuse, combatting grog and now Ice, trying to persuade people to eat decent food and get some exercise, etc.

Meanwhile, Noel Pearson proposes not just a treaty, but a 'network of treaties', with each First Nation. How many would that be ? A thousand, two thousand ? Who would represent each 'First Nation' at any treaty negotiations, assuming that such a proposal gets past a Referendum ?

In every little town, every region, there is no shortage of people who would claim to represent 'their people', their 'First Nation'. Down this way, there is one daydream to set up a 'Regional Authority'. Never mind that the area proposed would include maybe five hundred Indigenous people, but around thirty thousand non-Indigenous people. Apart from the dozen of rival organisations for the crown of ruler of the 'Regional Authority', what to do with the 29,500 non-Indigenous people ? Expel them ? Put them to work as peons ?

A 'network of treaties' would first have to resolve which big-shot, and which big-shot organisation, is supposed to be the one and only authority to be involved with their particular treaty. And what should be in a treaty. And what to do with the non-Indigenous people. It's taken more than twenty years to resolve many of the land title disputes between Indigenous groups. How much longer to resolve the daydream of who is to put their name to a First nations treaty.

Do Indigenous people have another twenty years before their pursuit of silver bullets, become irrelevant ?

Discuss. Get stuck in.

Joe