UN  Human Rights Committee on Australia,     20 July 2000

Mr Amor, Tunisia:

�commendable, outstanding report, particularly the third report which is
particularly voluminous and rich. It�s difficult sometimes to grasp,
difficult to understand at times, but it is a very thorough and
responsible job of work, which is most profitable, useful and gives a
lot of food for thought. I thank you for that. I wish also to take this
opportunity of pay a tribute to Mrs Evatt. I knew her through her
writings, particularly on the Aboriginal Peoples and I have known her
better in the framework of this Committee. That has provided me with the
opportunity of appreciating her professionalism and her great powers and
competence. 

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural policy,
multi-religious body politic of Australia. A great deal has been done
and I think there is an unquestionable will to foster diversity while
safeguarding difference in a spirit of comprehensive tolerance.
Nonetheless, at times, a few questions do spring to mind. I shall try
and ask two sorts of questions. The distinguished Ambassador began his
statement by telling us that the Aboriginals are under-privileged. This
is a self-evident statement which has been very clearly put forward. I
think the Aboriginals are not simply underprivileged but perhaps, and
above all, misunderstood. At the very least they are not sufficiently
understood, because the questions of the Aboriginals forces us to deal
with two forms of thinking, which may not simply be merely different,
but, indeed, frankly contradictory. The authorities try to take into
consideration the special characteristics and features of the
Aboriginals, but they try to pour those into a mould, which is not their
own; into a spirit, a thinking, a liberal individualism, but,
nonetheless, individualism, which really is grounded in one communities
dominance over another. So it seems to me that what is happening is that
the spirit of those people is one that is community based, not
individual based and so I think there are difficulties for the
Aboriginals and therefore this is why so many initiatives have failed,
because at times overall there is a deep rooted misunderstanding. This
understanding emerges in various issues in the perception of land, for
instance. The perception of land, according to positive Australian law
is a perception based on the concept of ownership, on the individual
appropriation of land, whereas the meaning of land for the Aboriginals
cannot be simply reduced to an economic fiction. It has a far deeper and
quite different meaning. It is not easy therefore for these two
conflicting forms of thinking to come together. But for them to meet
there must be a judgement on the basis of their own value system and not
on the basis of a value system of the person making the judgement. Let
me be specific. The sacred sites. The Australian authorities have done a
great deal in this respect but here again this meeting of two minds is
very difficult because the sacred nature of a site is hedged about with
secrecy for some groups of Aboriginal people there are only groups of
women within those groups who are in a position, where need be, to
transmit and convey those secrets to their daughters and those secrets
are not to be transmitted to men and therefore cannot be managed or
dealt with by men. I know that a lot has been undertaken by the
authorities of Australia, but I know that there is a deep-rooted
misunderstanding that has emerged. When a man was called upon instead of
woman, because a woman who had been placed in charge could have been the
person to whom, for the sacred sites� business, the women could have
confided in. 

Now, work. There are a lot of unemployed Aboriginals. There�s a very
large proportion vis-�-vis the non-Aboriginal. It is understandable why,
because, for instance, an Aboriginal person who is hired in an
enterprise according to specific hours of work and rules and conditions
cannot infringe his or her own identity by failing in some of their own
community. For example, for an Aboriginal person, if there is a death in
the group then that person has to go to take part in the funeral
ceremonies and observe a period of grieving. This may take days, weeks
or months, but, of course this thinking cannot be offered as a excuse to
an employer who has to deal with economic necessities. I am just trying
not to judge or criticise, but to offer an example of the clash of these
two forms of thinking, so that we can all see how points of convergence
can be found and some way found to preserve the rights of the Aboriginal
Peoples. 

Third example: Those children, those children that missionaries felt
they had to take with violence from their parents by force, to bring
them into the world as they saw it of civilisation. What a weird
civilisation that may have saved a few, but gave rise to absolutely
insoluble tragedies, that I saw for myself. People absolutely branded
for life by what happened to them, and so they go to alcohol, to drugs.
They turn to anything and so, of course, they find themselves in
treatment or in prison an there the authorities may offer them what is
correct, but, nonetheless, there is no real understanding of them.

Now, when it comes to the patrimony of Aboriginals, some assets have a
religious significance. This you find pretty much everywhere. I think in
London a lot was done but there are certain things that have a special
religious significance, which have still not been recovered or restored
and the recovery of those assets or goods of a sacred or religious
nature need to be returned to them because this is a return to their
roots, a recognition, an acknowledgement of their dignity, of their
culture. Have the discussions with the British authorities led to
resolving some of those religious assets that are found in some London
and other museums. That is all I will say about the Aboriginals and I
will take up my other questions tomorrow. On the Aboriginals I should
simply like to say that I have a question about the reserved jobs. Is
there any logic to having posta that are reserved for Aboriginal people?
Is this a sort of positive discrimination. These are reserved jobs that
will take into consideration the special sets of circumstances of the
Aboriginal Peoples. This sort of question I should like to ask tomorrow
morning.

-- 
**********************************
'Click' to protect the rainforest:
Make the Rainforest Site your homepage!
http://www.therainforestsite.com/
**********************************
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at 
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words:    unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission 
from the
copyright owner for purposes  of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under 
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further 
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."

RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ 
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/

Reply via email to