Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Maybe because they were not entering a situation where some of the civilian population were armed.
Aboriginal child abuse and the NT Intervention
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Maybe because they were not entering a situation where some of the civilian population were armed.
Here is what the original report recommendations stated:
But apparently, all one needs to do is send in the police and army, ban alcohol and porn, submit children to compulsory medical checks to determine abuse and of course, roll back the land rights of the aboriginals and transfer them from their community lands. How many non-Aboriginal Australians would stand for this kind of intervention in their communities ?
But apparently, all one needs to do is send in the police and army, ban alcohol and porn, submit children to compulsory medical checks to determine abuse and of course, roll back the land rights of the aboriginals and transfer them from their community lands. How many non-Aboriginal Australians would stand for this kind of intervention in their communities ?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Well what would you suggest Sam? I mean seriously what do you think would be a better approach to curtailing the problem of child abuse along with substance abuse within this community that is so cut off from the rest of Aussie society? I mean cut off by distance.
Bells
Staff member
So you are trolling?
Comedy gold!
Assange is a white anglo saxon Australian - irony..
I understand you have this incessant need to troll, but the NT is not Afghanistan.
It is a mixture of both. A lot of the problems in Aboriginal communities at present is directly caused by alcoholism. It is something Aboriginal elders have been trying to combat for years. You see it as a symptom and in the past it may have been correct, but not any more. Now it is a direct cause in keeping them down. Trying to combat rampant alcoholism and forcing the children into schools is a start.. Protecting those children is an even bigger start.
There have been Aboriginal leaders who have called for not allowing welfare payments to some in their communities because they refuse to work and refuse to participate in the community itself, using all of their payments to buy booze instead.
As an upper caste Indian, you really have no grounds to make such an observation, especially since you have never set foot in the country, have never spoken to an Aboriginal and know nothing of their history or their current conditions or plight. Dry zones are for the most part put in place at the request of elders who are tired of the destruction and violence that occurs daily. Elders have their say and they determine how their communities work. Until you understand that community dynamic, and the role elders play in Aboriginal communities, you cannot attempt to lecture about self determination in Aboriginal communities. They have determined a zero alcohol policy. So the Government in many instances followed their request and provided the police and personnel required to ensure the policy was successful. Not all Aboriginal communities are dry zones. That is something you need to understand.
You have spent pages complaining about big white Government raiding Aboriginals - ignoring from the get go that when the reports of the level of abuse and alcoholism came out, Indigenous elders were demanding and begging for strong intervention to protect their children and to save their communities. The Howard Government went with the strongest response they had on hand and yes, it was overkill. But the request to enter these communities came about at the open request of elders who were floundering in trying to control their communities and protect their women and children.
At the moment, the level of alcoholism is a disease. And it is treated as such by Elders and their communities. It has become a racial disease because of the damage it is doing to the body of the community itself.
You mean communities where the community Elders demanded their community become a dry zone and ban alcohol from entering the community as an attempt to treat the disease? That escaped you, hasn't it?
With the removal of alcohol, they turned to other substances, like glue and spray paint and petrol. Some parents even get their children onto the substances because it keeps them quiet and subdued. That is what Elders are having to deal with in their communities. It leads to rampant violence.. And yes, it is a disease. They recognise it as such and recognise it as being something that affects their communities and themselves directly.
No idea where you get your ideas from. I challenge you to spend some time in some Aboriginal communities and see how you fare and then you can tell me for yourself. Elders determined that intervention was required. Government responded with overkill. It is not new and occurs everywhere around the world. You would find few Australians who are not aware of the plight of Aboriginals in Australia. The challenge for us is to reduce substance abuse and increase access to education and health care. The army was used for logistical reasons for that purpose. They are still used for air lifting injured or sick people from distant communities to get them to major town centers for treatment and for setting up outposts with medical providers for those in far outback communties.
But you need to understand one thing. Few things happen these days in their communities without input from Elders who govern these communities. And to understand that, you need to understand the dynamic of the role of Elderes or 'Aunties and Uncles' in Aboriginal communities.
No idea. In some instances, removal was essential to protect families at risk. Those families were then placed in other communities where they had 'Aunties and Uncles' there for support and care. Again context and lack of understanding from you is a major issue.
Again, few things happen to communities without the say or request of elders in the community. I'd suggest you educate yourself on the hundreds of different communities that exist in Australia and understand how alcohol affects some and not others and how Elders treat what you call the 'symptom's'..
"Our"? What "ours"?Gustav said:
Tell me, which native are you?
Irony..
Speak to native Fijians and Mauritian Creoles about their feelings on mass migration of Indians to their countries. Again.. irony..
Bells
Staff member
You are aware that that level of intervention also occurs for non-Aboriginals as well in some instances?
That in some cases, the Government has withheld welfare payments for rent and food purposes, even moved families in instances of abuse? Welfare payments are withheld constantly and as a matter of course for thousands of Australians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike. Money is withheld to pay for child support payments, rent, food stamps, etc - land can also be confiscated and sold for the benefit of the children if required (in cases of extreme abuse where the parents are incarcerated for example).
That escaped you as well?
Yes clearly, could you point out in which Australian community other than aboriginals one has there been compulsory medical check ups of all children under 16? I'm willing to consider the possibility that there are non-aboriginal communities where the same protocol is being followed: i.e. ban on porn and alcohol, rolling back land rights, transfer of entire communities to other viable communities, etc. e,g, the miner communities which solicit the services of teen prostitutes from aboriginal communities. What intervention has been conducted on them?
Say what? First of all I am a Muslim [i.e. no caste] secondly both my parents come from social classes which qualify as "other backward classes" and on one side we probably classify as Scheduled Castes if there had not been conversion to Islam at some point in the past. Nowhere near the upper caste baby!
I belong to the first generation in our family that actually has had post graduate education but I have cousins who made it only to high school, like my mother and uncles and aunts who never saw any schooling at all for reasons of economic instability and remote communities. Or backward families.
Last edited:
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
@Sam
Could you please check post #63. I asked some questions about what you think should be done.
Could you please check post #63. I asked some questions about what you think should be done.
Bells
Staff member
You mean like the whole country that needs to have their children checked and immunised for them to even be allowed into schools and childcare? Like that?
Individual families you mean?
And "willing to consider"? Heh.. Who made you God?
Not everyone in the communities had these rules applied to them. Some did and those who did were the ones with reports and continuous instances of substance abuse and physical and sexual abuse. It was seen as a way of ensuring the children in each family unit would have food on the table as the families would be given foodstamps - and a lot of the time, this was done at the request of elders. In the general community, social workers and Centrelink (the system that pays the welfare) will determine if some families have the same rules applied to them (eg food stamps, welfare payments withheld for rent and bills for example) and they are theyn monitored. Those who have children that aren't in their care will often have funds deducted from their welfare payments to pay child support for those children, etc. Some do complain that $3.50 per fortnight is being taken from their payments to pay their child support, but hey, them's the break and this applies to everyone equally.
You do realise that in some households, if alcohol or pornography is found (after constant problems or reports of substance abuse in those households) the children can be removed from their care? Yes? No? This applies regardless of race.
What miner communities are soliciting the services of teenage aboriginals as prostitutes? When and where did this happen?
Well it seems to me there is already a report with excellent recommendations suggested by experts who have closely studied the issue. see post 62
Is there any reason why the aboriginals cannot be treated the way this issue would be in any non-aboriginal community anywhere in the world?
Bells
Staff member
Have you read the report and the recommendations themselves? Or are you relying on socialist interpretations of the report itself?
Here is the actual report: http://www.inquirysaac.nt.gov.au/
And the recommendations: http://www.inquirysaac.nt.gov.au/pdf/report_by_sections/bipacsa_final_report-recommendations.pdf
I'll give you an example of how it was applied. Since you seem a tad obsessed that Aboriginals don't have access to alcohol, here is what they recommended:
Alcohol
61. That the government continue to implement the Alcohol Framework as a matter of urgency and focus on reducing overall alcohol consumption
and intoxication and not just on “visible” or “risky” drinking.
62. That, as a matter of urgency, the government consults with all Aboriginal communities with a view to identifying culturally effective strategies for
reducing alcohol related harm that are incorporated in individual community alcohol management plans.
63. That, as a matter of urgency, the government makes greater efforts to reduce access to takeaway liquor in the Northern Territory, enhance the responsible use of takeaway liquor, restrict the flow of alcohol into Aboriginal communities and support Aboriginal community efforts to deal with issues relating to alcohol.
Page 8 - 9 of the report..
61. That the government continue to implement the Alcohol Framework as a matter of urgency and focus on reducing overall alcohol consumption
and intoxication and not just on “visible” or “risky” drinking.
62. That, as a matter of urgency, the government consults with all Aboriginal communities with a view to identifying culturally effective strategies for
reducing alcohol related harm that are incorporated in individual community alcohol management plans.
63. That, as a matter of urgency, the government makes greater efforts to reduce access to takeaway liquor in the Northern Territory, enhance the responsible use of takeaway liquor, restrict the flow of alcohol into Aboriginal communities and support Aboriginal community efforts to deal with issues relating to alcohol.
Page 8 - 9 of the report..
Pay particular notice to point 63. Which is what I've been telling you all through this thread and which you have consistently ignored.
A quote in the actual report, from the Central Australian community about education and how to get children into schools:
At present, children are laughing at the government because there are no consequences if they do not go to school. Something needs to be done such as having a truancy officer, fining parents or linking welfare payments to school attendance.
Page 151 of the report
Page 151 of the report
And then we have this:
The Inquiry asked DEET what strategies could be employed to get children to school. The following list of strategies, some already in place and some proposed, was provided. The Inquiry urges DEET to implement these
strategies with the utmost urgency and commitment.
DEET strategies for systemic and schoolbased responses to non-attendance
Systemic Responses
• Systemic coordination – Create an AO8 Senior Adviser – Enrolment and Attendance, to work with General Managers Schools on a sustained and coordinated enrolment and attendance effort
• Enhance the use of Police and Family and Children’s Services for non-attendees – will require the development of service agreements with Police and Health Enhanced legal effort
• Investigate the possibility of prosecution for nonenrolment/non-attendance and also the introduction of a fine regime
• Introduce “authorised persons”, as designated under the Education Act, to identify young people of compulsory school age not at school for reasons of
non-enrolment or attendance and report them
• Investigate with Centrelink the ability to trial joint programs
• Investigate with the Australian Government the ability to link welfare payments and non-attendance.
Page 153 of the report
strategies with the utmost urgency and commitment.
DEET strategies for systemic and schoolbased responses to non-attendance
Systemic Responses
• Systemic coordination – Create an AO8 Senior Adviser – Enrolment and Attendance, to work with General Managers Schools on a sustained and coordinated enrolment and attendance effort
• Enhance the use of Police and Family and Children’s Services for non-attendees – will require the development of service agreements with Police and Health Enhanced legal effort
• Investigate the possibility of prosecution for nonenrolment/non-attendance and also the introduction of a fine regime
• Introduce “authorised persons”, as designated under the Education Act, to identify young people of compulsory school age not at school for reasons of
non-enrolment or attendance and report them
• Investigate with Centrelink the ability to trial joint programs
• Investigate with the Australian Government the ability to link welfare payments and non-attendance.
Page 153 of the report
The very things you have been saying is wrong and then you come out and say that the Government should follow what is said in the report.. It has been blatantly obvious that you know nothing of the report itself and have instead relied on international socialist sites that were discussing the report. You have also disregarded who the authors of the report consulted to write their report and guess what, Aboriginal elders in the NT were recommending the withholding of welfare payments to get children into schools as a measure - and this is a tool that is being utilised around the country in non-Aboriginal families.
Now, I would suggest you read the actual report instead of relying on completely external sources who have little to no clue and are only intent on pushing their own political agenda. In other words, get a fucking clue.
I noticed the wide gap between theory and practice yes. I won't reiterate the points since they have already been covered but my main focus is the lack of emphasis on self determination and the extreme nanny state approach. If you read the report carefully you can distinguish one from the other quite clearly.
Start at the very beginning, its not a complex concept:
Moreover, the results bear me out. There is greater substance abuse, not less three years after the intervention.
But there has been no change in the approach. Now they also want to add to the devastation by moving the communities. I think that makes it very clear what the priorities are.
Start at the very beginning, its not a complex concept:
Moreover, the results bear me out. There is greater substance abuse, not less three years after the intervention.
But there has been no change in the approach. Now they also want to add to the devastation by moving the communities. I think that makes it very clear what the priorities are.
Last edited:
relevance? do you disagree with the account?
alright
let it be known, henceforth, that the blood of all indigenous people courses thru my veins
fiji? immigration by indians. you have it backwards.
the natives asked the indians (brought in by the anglos as coolies) to fuck off
they did....
Official response to Indo-Fijian emigration is mixed. At one level, there is regret and concern at the enormous loss of talent and skill, as well as some understanding of why this is taking place. At another, there is the "thank-goodness" attitude among those who stand to benefit from the emigration of Indo-Fijians, particularly those in the public sector. Fijian nationalists applaud their departure as a necessary first step in the "Fijianisation" of their country, a price the country "must" pay to reclaim its indigenous soul. This leaves Indo-Fijians caught between a rock and a hard place. They are accused of being disloyal to the country because they emigrate. Yet, those who remain find it difficult to get a place at the indigenous Fijian table. The government is reluctant to invest in citizens it knows it will lose in the end, while the denial of opportunity only makes Indo-Fijians more determined to leave.
Fiji's Indians immigrated to Fiji as indentured laborers in the late 19th and 20th centuries to build an economy and provide cheap labor, so that the indigenous community could be spared the ordeals of plantation work and left alone to progress at their own pace in their own subsistence economy. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the contribution of Indian labor to the colonial economy that helped shield the indigenous community from the corrosive effects of the modern world. But the descendants of those indentured servants, despite their key role in Fiji's economic and social development, are now perceived as hindering the rightful progress of indigenous Fijians. This perception is not likely to change in the near future, which means continued high levels of emigration by Indo-Fijians seeking new opportunities abroad.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=110Fiji's Indians immigrated to Fiji as indentured laborers in the late 19th and 20th centuries to build an economy and provide cheap labor, so that the indigenous community could be spared the ordeals of plantation work and left alone to progress at their own pace in their own subsistence economy. It is no exaggeration to say that it was the contribution of Indian labor to the colonial economy that helped shield the indigenous community from the corrosive effects of the modern world. But the descendants of those indentured servants, despite their key role in Fiji's economic and social development, are now perceived as hindering the rightful progress of indigenous Fijians. This perception is not likely to change in the near future, which means continued high levels of emigration by Indo-Fijians seeking new opportunities abroad.
..as it should be
please let this account inspire you anglos to return to your homeland
now
tell me about indian invasion of mauritius
go back to iran, cursed brahmin. princely states will not work either
happy now, bells?
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
But the situation itself is complex. Your quote of Fred Chaney from the report states that quite clearly. Everyone knows that the situation must be seen to locally. And in many instances, as the report states clearly (had you read it) that local Elders requested certain steps be taken for their community. And it was.
Whether we agree with it or not is beside the point. This is what many of the elders wanted for their communities. Look at the Central Australian Community, who were dealing with extreme levels of truancy.. The best way they found to get the children back into school was to force the parents to make the children go to school and the best way they could see to do that was to connect welfare payment with their children's school attendance. That was their choice.
Self determination also comes with respecting the choices of many of the Elders who made the choice to act by demanding Government support and giving their own recommendations. I may not agree with what they wanted, but that is what they wanted and what they saw was best for their community after all else failed.
Elders in Aboriginal communities are like "nannies". Their role is to guide the community and to ensure the rules and laws of their community were followed. That is what you do not quite grasp about Aboriginal culture. Elders are the nannies.
In some communities yes. Not in all. In some communities, banning alcohol and drugs and forcing children to attend school and forcing home visits by health care professionals and Aboriginal social workers helped reduce levels of violence and substance abuse. In others it did not.
Where the Government failed was to apply the intervention as a blanket across all problem communities. It was not tailored to each community as it should have been. The report and recommendations was quite clear and it listed the extremes of measures the Government should take to protect the children in all communities. The main focus of the recommendation was to work with local community leaders. That did not always happen and it was to some community's detriment. No one is denying that.
What you cannot grasp is that for many communities, the elders requested the intervention and some continue to do so across the country.
You don't care about the plight of the Aboriginals. To you this is just to suit your agenda because you're upset that the debate about Afghanistan is not going your way. So why do you ask about their priorities?
Do you doubt that the Indigenous leaders who requested the intervention and control over things like welfare payments and medical check-up's aren't acting in their community's interest? I don't. They know what they need and want for their community.
So what approach do you recommend? You have cited Mr Chaney's quote about approaching this locally. What do you recommend when you disagree with some local community leaders who requested or demanded certain action that you deem to be the imposition of a 'nanny state' order? Do you respect their self determination and respect their requests because they know what their community needs? Or do you ignore them and do what you want to do?
So, on the advice of aboriginal elders, Howard was able to send the police and the military, submit children to compulsory medical checks for sexual abuse and presumably with the blessings of the elders will transport the communities to viable communities and make indigenous lands available for mining etc. Clearly, the elders know what they are doing and since it conveniently falls in with what Howard wants, it means that we should simply stand back and let Howard and the elders decide what is best. Clearly as unviable communities, even if they manage to make substance abuse and malnutrition worse, well, what can you do?
Does that approach satisfy you?
who? name them. these nebulous allusions are crap
the anglos always repackage coercion as requests for intervention. its kinda like ..."we were invited to afghanistan". they create the conditions for failure and and once the expected outcome is apparent, the justifications for shit begins
all you need is one turncoat. give him a few bucks, a bottle of sterno, then put him in front of a camera
woncha hep us, great white man? hep us please?
Well Australia did get into the liberalisation program post-Iraq. Why reinvent the wheel? Anonymous, bought or made up representatives of the society to be liberated are so convenient
Bells
Staff member
Should we start calling you the Indi Guru now?
You mean after a coup and threats of death and removal of all their land rights and business holding rights? The mass migration in the last 20 or so years was well after the Anglo's brought them in as labourers.
And a significant portion remain. At one point, there were more Indians than Fijians in Fiji.
Is that what you mean by "they did"?
What Anglos?
I take it you're going to board the next plane to the UK to return the US to its native owners? Yes? No? I'm guessing the answer is no.
I'll give you a hint.. Mauritius is now an Indian Republic.
Against the wishes of Creoles who strongly opposed the move.
The point that you aren't getting is colonialism wasn't just at the hands of the whites. They may have started it, but migrants often take over, and attempts to stop the flow of migrants have failed, as they did in Fiji and to some extent in Mauritius. I wouldn't demand that Indians in Fiji and Mauritius return home'. That is not how it should be. But the problems of lack of self determination faced in Fiji, for example, is similar to what we see with Aboriginals in Australia. The only difference between the two in that regard is that the Fijian's staged a violent overthrow of the Indian majority Government and stricter laws put in place, which in many respects deny Indians equal rights in Fiji. That is not right by any means.
Sam's and your views are simplistic and childish and have little understanding of the consequences of what you demand.. Saying 'go home' isn't going to fix the problems. Even if every single non Aboriginal person left Australia, it would not solve the issues that are now ingrained in the hundreds of communities stretched around the country. It won't stop the violence and it won't stop the substance abuse. No one is saying that the full blown intervention worked in all instances. What needs to be found is a balance and yes, respecting what elders request and supporting communities and providing them with funding for education and health care and developing employment or schemes to help develop employment. We all know that is, at its heart, what is required. I'll give you another example.
Elders in many communities have requested that Aboriginal children not be taught that sex before marriage is acceptable and that they should not be taught about safe sex or the use of contraception - with teen pregnancies rampant, is that a viable option? Yes and no. A balance needs to be found. One way to do that was to limit the baby bonus payment and giving the $5000 payment per child born in increments for young teenage mothers to prevent girls from having babies to access the lump sum that used to be paid. We are still waiting to see if that change to the scheme works.
It is complex. Simply saying go home whiteys won't fix it. It hasn't in Fiji when the Fijians demanded that the Indians go home. Poverty and health and education issues still persist amongst native Fijians, even if a large portion of Indians left and the rights of those who remained curtailed.
Bells
Staff member
Are you aware that many Indigenous communities are paid millions by mining companies to mine and plunder their lands?
And many happily accept it?
Now, you are saying that we should respect self determination, but then you say we should limit it even if the elders request it - because it seems you're also saying that they don't know or understand what they want..?
Make up your mind.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Some elders requested massive intervention into their communities - which is reflected in the report. Again, it is clear you have never read the report and instead are copying and pasting what websites and groups from other countries are saying about it (Yes, the Chaney quote was from a link to an Asian site you linked earlier). It's on page 23 of the report, in case you did not know.
You demand self determination, but only if what they want for themselves fits into what you think Indigenous communities should or must want for themselves.
Bells
Staff member
Are you now saying the Aboriginal elders in some communities do not exist?
Could you be more insulting?
Tell me Sam, do they only exist if they believe or request what you think they should believe or request? And you whine about lack of self determination?
Where I come from, self determination means the right of nations to freely choose their own sovereignty. I did not realise Australians defined the self determination of aboriginals as "what the elder said"
See also:
Personally I think models of exploitation whether of the aboriginals by the Australian government or by aboriginal leaders should all be avoided. From what I can see here, there is no difference from what the Australians are doing in Afghanistan ie paying off local militias which compete with the local apparatus and undermine the local social institutions by making them largely irrelevant