![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Rights of Indigenous Australians
There is little doubt in my mind that the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, is a racist in both traditional and contemporary senses of the word. From his rejection of sanctions against the evil apartheid regime in the mid-1980s, to his public gaffe in calling for curbing of Asian immigration in 1988, his refusual to condemn Pauline Hanson's outbursts, the "children overboard" scandal ofand the Tampa (does anyone seriously think he didn't know?) and his refusual even to accept that Australia faces racist problems after the Cronulla riots are all indicitive of a person who panders and supports the superiority of the white man over his lessers. Of course, he claims "I don't have a prejudiced bone in my body."
But none have suffered as greatly as indigenous Australians at the hands of the current Prime Minister.
To recall, after the High Court decided (Wik Peoples v. The State of Queensland), that pastoral leases do not give exclusive possession to the pastoralist and do not extinguish native title, Howard embarked on a campaign to amend the Native Title Act - to "extinguish Wik" as it was popularly known. His claim was: "the [High Court] Wik decision pushed the pendulum too far in the Aboriginal direction".
Next he sought to change the culture of Australia. There had been great movements in the nation from 1988 onwards in favour of a treaty between indigenous Australia and the Commonwealth. Further impetus was gained when the "Stolen Generations" report acknowledged the separation of children from their families. The Prime Minister refused to apologise, leading to one of the best actions in Australian political history; at Corroboree 2000, a sizeable part of the audience rose from their seats and turned their backs on the Prime Minister.
Following this disposession of land rights, the next stage was to disposses indigenous people of their own decision making structure, namely the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, a representative body elected by indigenous Australians. The opportunistic decision to shutdown the organisation during litigation against Geoff Clark can be counted as clever politics, albeit morally repugnant.
Now the Prime Minister apparently wants to stamp out child abuse in indigenous communities; I often half-joked that he'd use whatever it takes to win an election, and I guess if a combination of the race card and the pedophile card should be winner in his mind. The first step is paternalistic intervention: to put a ban on alcohol and pornography, to enforce education in English and to threaten the welfare payments of parents who do not comply.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
iron_orchid provides an excellent collection on the outbreak of the story.
Professor Ian Anderson considers the electoral ploy. Aboriginal elders recognise that they're being used; "black children overboard". Families decide to flee, rather than have their children taken away. Muriel Bamblett, begs the Prime Minister to engage in consultation rather than enforcing measures (I don't think he cares Muriel...). Jenny Martiniello reminds us of the Howard strategy (defund, blame, eliminate) and recalls Paul Keating's great words: "What if this were done to us?" But most daming of all, the very author of the report which has inspired the PMs has condemned his actions.
Want to end prevalent family problems in indigenous communities, such as domestic violence and sexual assault? Give the people dignity and the means to dignity; financial security, health services, education go a long way here. Give the indigenous people the freehold rights to the land which they inhabited for 50,000 years. Consult with them in accord to their decision-making structures. Don't tell them what they must do; work with them.
But quite honestly, I don't think John Howard particularly cares about indigenous Australians. I think he's more interested in how he can use them for his own means. History will judge him very harshly indeed.
But none have suffered as greatly as indigenous Australians at the hands of the current Prime Minister.
To recall, after the High Court decided (Wik Peoples v. The State of Queensland), that pastoral leases do not give exclusive possession to the pastoralist and do not extinguish native title, Howard embarked on a campaign to amend the Native Title Act - to "extinguish Wik" as it was popularly known. His claim was: "the [High Court] Wik decision pushed the pendulum too far in the Aboriginal direction".
Next he sought to change the culture of Australia. There had been great movements in the nation from 1988 onwards in favour of a treaty between indigenous Australia and the Commonwealth. Further impetus was gained when the "Stolen Generations" report acknowledged the separation of children from their families. The Prime Minister refused to apologise, leading to one of the best actions in Australian political history; at Corroboree 2000, a sizeable part of the audience rose from their seats and turned their backs on the Prime Minister.
Following this disposession of land rights, the next stage was to disposses indigenous people of their own decision making structure, namely the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, a representative body elected by indigenous Australians. The opportunistic decision to shutdown the organisation during litigation against Geoff Clark can be counted as clever politics, albeit morally repugnant.
Now the Prime Minister apparently wants to stamp out child abuse in indigenous communities; I often half-joked that he'd use whatever it takes to win an election, and I guess if a combination of the race card and the pedophile card should be winner in his mind. The first step is paternalistic intervention: to put a ban on alcohol and pornography, to enforce education in English and to threaten the welfare payments of parents who do not comply.
iron_orchid provides an excellent collection on the outbreak of the story.Professor Ian Anderson considers the electoral ploy. Aboriginal elders recognise that they're being used; "black children overboard". Families decide to flee, rather than have their children taken away. Muriel Bamblett, begs the Prime Minister to engage in consultation rather than enforcing measures (I don't think he cares Muriel...). Jenny Martiniello reminds us of the Howard strategy (defund, blame, eliminate) and recalls Paul Keating's great words: "What if this were done to us?" But most daming of all, the very author of the report which has inspired the PMs has condemned his actions.
Want to end prevalent family problems in indigenous communities, such as domestic violence and sexual assault? Give the people dignity and the means to dignity; financial security, health services, education go a long way here. Give the indigenous people the freehold rights to the land which they inhabited for 50,000 years. Consult with them in accord to their decision-making structures. Don't tell them what they must do; work with them.
But quite honestly, I don't think John Howard particularly cares about indigenous Australians. I think he's more interested in how he can use them for his own means. History will judge him very harshly indeed.
no subject
no subject
My paranoia on the matter has me studying intently so that when welfare recipients are targeted, I will not be one. (Furthermore, so that I'll be employable doing something compatible with me not losing my mind.)
Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
I made this prediction way back then, and then a little later, this happened.
Ratbastard Johnny is way ahead of you.
Re: Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
Re: Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
Re: Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
*nod* Redefine people and then, under the new definition accuse them of being bludgers whereas previously they were disabled.. Oh, subtle...
Re: Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
Nice.
Re: Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
Though, if you think what carers save the public health system, the bonus is a relative pittance.
A friend of mine with excruciating anxiety problems does not qualify for DSP, so has to job-hunt despite the fact that any job he is qualified for, he is not capable of actually doing. Oh - and there is no psychology type support for him. He's brilliant and pedantically ethical - but without hope of fulfilling the mutual obligation requirements for welfare. If there is a welfare crackdown, he would likely be the first against the wall.
Re: Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
Ouch. That's seriously nasty. Our welfare net (still!) has some significant holes in it...
Re: Did you warn of a firefight? I didn't hear, I was busy dodging bullets.
Yeah, but he's working.
You're allowed discounts if you're earning an income, see... If you're just "bludging", well then you're a drain on the hard-working folk..
no subject
Single mothers!
no subject
Who, me?
no subject
If the government does go after single mums, I'd be in favour of a whole slew of them hitting Peter Costello with a class action paternity-by-proxy suit. ;-)
no subject
Nah, you're entitled to have the money (because "we" want more women to have kids) but you'd better make sure you've still got a man to support you afterwards!
no subject
no subject
Truly it is the work of an evil genius.