Aboriginal child abuse and the NT Intervention

[Asguard]

Hey I agree, it was wrong and stupid. The assumption that the government has any right to decide that in order to feed children single people without children should have there money managed while the rates of neglect are the same for people who don't recive $1 from centerlink is a joke. However using this to further your decimation is insulting to the same people you claim to care about.

Side issue: sexual assult is the smallest amount of abuse, the largest is neglect

 

[S.A.M.]

Side issue: sexual assult is the smallest amount of abuse, the largest is neglect

And poverty, lack of social support systems, poor education and cultural colonialism. There are poor people in India who sell their children because they cannot afford to feed them, should we send the army after them? What is the logic? They abuse their children so we should abuse them? And this will create an epiphany whereby they will become model citizens?

I find it really bizarre that the Aussies have singled out aboriginals for "intervention" by cops and the army. What is the rate of sexual abuse in poor white communities compared to the aboriginals? How many aboriginal children are abused by non-aboriginal Australians?

 

[Asguard]

The police have an aposlute duty to investigate crimes and refer them to the DPP. No government state or federal tells them which crimes to investigate, they deal with staffing levels.

The army are a large group of people with a wide skill base from construction, Med, logistics and heeps of other trades and proffessions. There for when there is an urgent need they can be used to cover gaps in essential services, except policing. That I beloved would require a change to legislation.

If India wanted to use there own defense force to build proper homes for the poor good on them
Personally I think there is a deficit in the service delivery provided by the Indian government

 

[S.A.M.]

Personally I think there is a deficit in the service delivery provided by the Indian government

Sure which is why you won't see any of us praising them when they are let loose on the population. What I want to know is why Australians are comfortable with letting them loose on the aboriginals. If the Indian army was used in race specific interventions, what would you call it? Do you have interventions only for blacks, only for Indians, only for Arabs, only for Chinese?

The police have an aposlute duty to investigate crimes and refer them to the DPP. No government state or federal tells them which crimes to investigate, they deal with staffing levels.

The army are a large group of people with a wide skill base from construction, Med, logistics and heeps of other trades and proffessions. There for when there is an urgent need they can be used to cover gaps in essential services, except policing. That I beloved would require a change to legislation.

Ah but does it work? If all the expertise does is make things worse, what is it worth? Where will the aborigines seek asylum? The Afghans and the Somalians and Iraqis are leaving their country, where will these people go?

 

[Asguard]

Does what work?

Did the ADF truck drivers manage to get the milk to the shops when the drivers went on extended strike in Vic? Pritty sure they did

Did the army help in Vic during black sat? Hell yes, it would have been even worse with out them

Did they help with the flooding in Queensland? You have already herd from one of the people they helped

Did they help after cyclone Tracy? They rebuilt Darwin and saved countless lives and there are beeps of other examples. But you don't care about that do you. Your either paranoid or racist

 

[S.A.M.]

No I don't care about army working on infrastructure - I do care about their being used to police people of a certain race especially when the profiling is done by birth and also when it is directed at what is clearly an already exploited community.

Australia Labor government moves to shut down remote Aboriginal settlements
By Susan Allan
27 June 2009
"The federal and Northern Territory (NT) Labor governments last month unveiled a series of free-market measures that will deepen the poverty and suffering in indigenous communities.
Working Future, announced by the NT government on May 20, seeks, under the auspices of the federal government’s NT intervention, to force the estimated 10,000 Aboriginal people living in some 580 remote “homeland” settlements into 20 special settlements or so-called “economic hubs”. The homeland communities have been defined as “non-viable”.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/abor-j27.shtml

So they are not backwards, not even socially challenged they are "non-viable"

nonviable /non·vi·a·ble/ (-vi´ah-b'l) not capable of living

 

[Asguard]

Sam one question for you. Do you belive that people and governments have the right to deal with internal matters as they see fit? For instance do you think.Australia should judge who builds the roads in India?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam one question for you. Do you belive that people and governments have the right to deal with internal matters as they see fit? For instance do you think.Australia should judge who builds the roads in India?

Sure, everyone except the aboriginals [and Afghans and Iraqis and Somalians] should deal with internal matters as they see fit. Some people just aren't viable enough for self determination.

Right?

 

[Asguard]

As much as you might not like it, aboriginals are Australian's and fall under the same laws the rest of us live under. Sure there are exceptions like hunting laws which they are exempt from but in the main the same laws applie. Oh and something you seem determined to ignore is the fact that most aboriginals live in Sydney, Darwin and Adelaide, not in the middle of outback Australia. They certainly don't live in another country like Somalia and on that issue you do realise how many people were slaughted because the US had a noninterventionest policy there. Maybe you should spend sometime exploring the cupability of Pakistan and India in the slaughter of those living in kashmer, India's surport for srilanka and the treatment of unmentionable's

 

[S.A.M.]

As much as you might not like it, aboriginals are Australian's and fall under the same laws the rest of us live under.

Okay tell me which other Australian communities along with the aboriginals will be dispossessed due to child abuse and put into viable communities where alcohol and porn is banned

 

[Asguard]

Guess you missed the stupid internet filter and the changes to the welfare act to ban use of welfare payments to buy alcohol or smokes.

 

[S.A.M.]

No I did not. Once again, which Australian communities other than the aboriginal ones will be dispossessed and transferred to "viable" communities which are free from alcohol and porn.

Don't worry its not specific to Australia, we also treat our adivasis like brainless morons, they make for easy dispossession, no one cares about their rights and they are really cheap labour. But we don't make a virtue of it. Not yet anyway.

 

[Asguard]

Actually most policy tests are carried out on Tasmania first because its a small island which is self contained

 

[Asguard]

Oh and you want to know why the NT is treated differently from the rest of the country, its because its a territory not a state. That's why the feds could overrule the territory government with regard to the vollentry euthanasia laws

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh and you want to know why the NT is treated differently from the rest of the country, its because its a territory not a state. That's why the feds could overrule the territory government with regard to the vollentry euthanasia laws

Does that mean its reserved aboriginal land? If the aboriginals are transferred from there, will it still be a territory? Are the laws slightly different there? Is that why they could suspend the racial discrimination act?

 

[Gustav]

"non-viable" is probably a spinoff from the aussie concept of "failed states", a code word that greenlights military intervention and takeover

The concept of 'failed states' for Australia was not shaped by the September 11 attacks, unlike the US and the UK, but by the Solomon Islands intervention in 2003. Before that, and despite the war against Afghanistan, the Government said little about failing or failed states let alone the idea of intervening in a failed state to fight terrorism. As late as January 2003, Alexander Downer was dismissing the idea of intervening in the Solomon Islands as a "folly in the extreme". "It would not work," he said, "no matter how it was dressed up". In case the point was missed, a major Government policy paper added a few weeks later, "Australia is not a neo-colonial power. The [Pacific] island countries are independent sovereign states"

Six months later, it seems Alexander Downer discovered a way to 'dress up' Australia's new-found foreign policy assertiveness. With the release of the ASPI report on the Solomon Islands, the concept of failed states apparently gave the Government the rhetoric it needed. As Tony Wright of The Bulletin explained, "It was not so much that the Solomon Islanders should have assistance foisted upon them – it was a matter of Australian security. A failed state such as the Solomons could become a danger to Australia"

The Government's approach to the idea of state failure suggests that policy precedes concept and not vice versa. It seems the Government is only willing to use the label, state failure, against a particular state, when it intends to intervene or has already intervened in that state. [35] The use of the concept is therefore highly nuanced: a state is considered 'failing' only when Australia or another powerful (usually Anglo-Western) nation declares it to be so, and only according to set policy objectives. Similarly, the term 'failed state' has been applied after the fact to describe the former situation of a state in which intervention has already occurred.​

http://www.uniya.org/talks/nguyen_mar05.html

Nicolas Rothwell puts a very nice twist...

There is, though, a failed state in our midst. That state is not Aboriginal north Australia, where the social fabric is in shreds and tatters. No: it is the jurisdiction largely responsible for entrenching this degree of indigenous disadvantage: the modern-seeming, self-governing Northern Territory.

On the face of things, all the standard attributes of a democratic society are present here in Darwin: a parliament, political parties, government departments, a range of key social institutions that look much like their southern equivalents. But in fact the Territory is best understood as an interlocking set of interest groups. It is heavily dependent on outside funding, the bureaucracy is shot through with politics, almost all medium-sized business relies on public sector contracts and the entire system is founded on the administration of an Aboriginal underclass.

The original act of dispossession is echoed today by a permanent process of pillage, in which the Territory helps itself to special-purpose federal funding meant to alleviate remote area disadvantage, then delivers grossly inadequate services to the indigenous societies of the bush.

The various problems with the regime in place in Darwin are structural as much as moral; they lurk at the heart of the political economy of the NT, well concealed. Thus they require a degree of anatomical description before the workings of the state become plain and reforms can be canvassed.​

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-failed-state/story-e6frg6po-1225790295464

 

[Gustav]

Actually most policy tests are carried out on Tasmania first because its a small island which is self contained

 

[Asguard]

Wow, I guess the african union must be evil to because they have peacekeeping missons. RAMSI isn't Australia alone, its a regional mission

 

[Gustav]

african union? i'll look into it
meanwhile....



some profiteers...





more profiteers

* Corporations get the majority of Australian aid contracts and nearly 85% of the value of those contracts
* Six corporations get between them more than half of the value of the contracts
* The corporate share is even larger when you consider the university sector also is nearly always under pressure to include corporate-style profit margins as they seek to compensate for government funding cuts
* Coffey International gets the largest share and in one year got 37% of the value of the contracts
* A dramatic shift from NGOs to corporates took place over the Howard years?—?before 2003, NGOs got a larger share of contracts
* The aid budget has increased under the Rudd government but for the most part it has been business as usual
* The proportion of aid contracts going to corporates has slightly declined under Labor with most of the shift going to individuals rather than aid NGOs
* Many individuals are also trading as small businesses but if the business only appeared to have one or two individuals, these contracts have been included with individuals
* Contracts often last for several years so some trends across the years may simply reflect that the companies have plenty of work on the books.​

i'll throw in iraq too, that other bleeding heart and hand wringing venture..

 

[GeoffP]

Sure, everyone except the aboriginals [and Afghans and Iraqis and Somalians] should deal with internal matters as they see fit. Some people just aren't viable enough for self determination.

Right?

Actually, it's also a question of political ability, Sam: Afghanistan in particular I believe would be able to deal with internal matters as they see fit, but for the efforts of the Taliban to interrupt those efforts. They don't seem to think that Afghanis can decide these matters on their own, free from an extremist religious outlook. This is a problem. On the one hand, you have frightened people - Afghanis - who just want to improve their lives. On the other - the Taliban - you have Pat Robertson with RPGs and knives. Contrary to popular belief, it really only takes one side to make a war.