RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Graham says: If you don't know enough, then do us the courtesy of doing some research and finding out. Karen says: Excuse me but you were the one to bring up this subject in the first place. I never once mentioned this topic. You mention it last night and when I reply with an honest answer you shoot me down with a do more research?!?!?!?! I answered you as honestly as I could by saying that I could not give an informed opinion on something I did not knowtoo much about. And whether it is 200 years, 100 years or 50 years - it doesn't matter what I think. I cannot comment on something I am not that familiar with or haven't had some experience with. I'm giving my opinions on things that I have seen, heard and witnessed during my time. It is not a cop out but the statement of truth. And as I am working all dayWITHOUT the internet I only get to play with it at home at night. So I do not spend all my time researching "the High Court's overturning of the doctrine of Terra Nullius which found that in fact the indigenous peoples had title to this land before the Europeans came." I do have other things to do. So don't attack me for giving you an honest "I don't know enough". You brought it up, not me. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 11:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen, are you serious? That's just a cop out. You must have an opinion, or you wouldn't be spending all of this time writing email to us. And if you don't agree that the original dispossession was a wrong done to Aborigines, then there is probably little sensible conversation that any of us can have with you. The point about the High Court's overturning of the doctrine of Terra Nullius is that it found that in fact the indigenous peoples had title to this land before the Europeans came. Title to land means ownership of it. If you take ownership away from someone, that is theft. Are suggesting that there are extenuating circumstances that mean this theft was not a wrong? If so, please take a stab at stating your argument. If you don't know enough, then do us the courtesy of doing some research and finding out. By the way, it is also a cop-out to say that all of these things happened 200 years ago. They didn't. The greatest part of the dispossession happened late last century and this century. That was when the greater geographical part of the country was settled, and there are plenty of people alive today who voted for governments who sanctioned that activity. So it is not accurate to say that it has nothing to do with current Australians. Perhaps it happened before both of our times, but not all our times. Graham Young - Original Message - From: Karen Crook To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 8:52 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Unfortunately I was not around over 200 years ago when this great nation first developed therefore I cannot give an informed opinion. I do not know what really happened. I know only the basics and I refuse to comment on something I do not know more accurately. Sorry. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 6:26 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Trudy and Karen, If I understand what you have both written correctly, I think we have some common ground. I think that we all agree that the original disposession of the continent was a wrong that was done to the original inhabitants. Perhaps Karen might like to reply to that? Just a yes or a no. I am sure I know where you stand Trudy. ;-)) Graham Y - Original Message - From: Karen Crook To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 3:35 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! How would you feel, Karen? Would you forgive them and go forward as if nothing had happened? Would you think you now had equality? Would you betray the love of your children and parents and their deaths and agree to forget so that they could feel better? No, I would not forgive them and no I would not think I had equality. But I would also know that the siblings were not responsible for their parents actions. You cannot hold someone responsible for someone else's actions. One would probably be impressed with the fact they came forward and acknowledged what had happened and agreed to try
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! How would you feel, Karen? Would you forgive them and go forward as if nothing had happened? Would you think you now had equality? Would you betray the love of your children and parents and their deaths and agree to forget so that they could feel better? No, I would not forgive them and no I would not think I had equality. But I would also know that the siblings were not responsible for their parents actions. You cannot hold someone responsible for someone else's actions. One would probably be impressed with the fact they came forward and acknowledged what had happened and agreed to try and make things better. Is that so wrong? As for apologising with reconciliation: Why should I be forced to betray my own innocence and apologise for something I never had any involvement with? My family were never involved so I personally do not wish to apologise. I'm not being stubborn or a racist just simply standing up for my beliefs, my morals and my own family's innocence. Perhaps people should be knocking on the doors of those who actually were responsible for each individual atrocity and bring them to justice - if they are still alive. They are the ones you want to say sorry. By saying that everybody should apologise, you then make people feel guilty for something they did not do - trying to force the hand - when all we want to do is move on in a peaceful, harmonious life. I do understand the story and it is very sad. Over time most people never forget but they do move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like admitting to a crime you did not commit! I have suffered some very distressing and personal issues of my own where I had an amazing level of anger inside me. Eventually over time though I have moved on. I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. I realised that there was no point in grieving all the time - it gets you no where and realising that what happened happened even for no good reason. What makes you think I was being so defensive about my age I put forward my age simply to show which generation I am from and that my views are from a younger person. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:06 PM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen, I don't know why you are so defensive about your age. There are many young people on the list. Some younger than you are. You ask why an apology is necessary and how it will make reconciliation work. An apology is only a part of reconciliation but a very necessary part. Let me pose you a scenario: You are married and have children. You live with your extended family on a very productive farm and everyone gets along pretty well and have enough to eat. Then, some people you've never seen before come onto your farm and begin shooting your family. Your husband and 2 of your 5 children are killed right in front of you.. Most of your extended family, your mother and father, aunts and uncles are killed. Some of the men come and rape your two young daughters and bash your young son. Almost all the people you have known and loved all your life are dead and you have no one to comfort you or to help you. They take your farm and everything on it and leave you a small plot to live on but only if you work the farm for barely enough food to live on. You have no choice because you don't want your children to starve to death so you work for the people who took everything you loved from you. Eventually, your two daughters give birth to a child each but they look different from your family and before long, the people you work for tear the the children away from your daughters and leave with them. You are grief-stricken for your daughters and the loss of your grandchildren, you are angry but helpless to do anything about it. Your son has never been the same
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Hi Karen, Once again, that's hardly reconciliation. Reconciliation is about doing our best to right the wrongs, not about perpetuating the "us them". I'm sure someone else on this list will put it much more elegantly than I, but surely you can't think revenge should be considered the essence of reconciliation?! Cheers. Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! How would you feel, Karen? Would you forgive them and go forward as if nothing had happened? Would you think you now had equality? Would you betray the love of your children and parents and their deaths and agree to forget so that they could feel better? No, I would not forgive them and no I would not think I had equality. But I would also know that the siblings were not responsible for their parents actions. You cannot hold someone responsible for someone else's actions. One would probably be impressed with the fact they came forward and acknowledged what had happened and agreed to try and make things better. Is that so wrong? As for apologising with reconciliation: Why should I be forced to betray my own innocence and apologise for something I never had any involvement with? My family were never involved so I personally do not wish to apologise. I'm not being stubborn or a racist just simply standing up for my beliefs, my morals and my own family's innocence. Perhaps people should be knocking on the doors of those who actually were responsible for each individual atrocity and bring them to justice - if they are still alive. They are the ones you want to say sorry. By saying that everybody should apologise, you then make people feel guilty for something they did not do - trying to force the hand - when all we want to do is move on in a peaceful, harmonious life. I do understand the story and it is very sad. Over time most people never forget but they do move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like admitting to a crime you did not commit! I have suffered some very distressing and personal issues of my own where I had an amazing level of anger inside me. Eventually over time though I have moved on. I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. I realised that there was no point in grieving all the time - it gets you no where and realising that what happened happened even for no good reason. What makes you think I was being so defensive about my age I put forward my age simply to show which generation I am from and that my views are from a younger person. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:06 PM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen, I don't know why you are so defensive about your age. There are many young people on the list. Some younger than you are. You ask why an apology is necessary and how it will make reconciliation work. An apology is only a part of reconciliation but a very necessary part. Let me pose you a scenario: You are married and have children. You live with your extended family on a very productive farm and everyone gets along pretty well and have enough to eat. Then, some people you've never seen before come onto your farm and begin shooting your family. Your husband and 2 of your 5 children are killed right in front of you.. Most of your extended family, your mother and father, aunts and uncles are killed. Some of the men come and rape your two young daughters and bash your young son. Almost all the people you have known and loved all your life are dead and you have no one to comfort you or to help you. They take your farm and everything on it and leave you a small plot to live on but only if you work the farm for barely enough
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
The differencewith your examples is that you are saying it to someone you know and love. Saying sorry to a race is entirely different - you say it to agroup of people you could never know personally. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard isthat he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Wasn't there an article in all the major media 2 nights ago stating that a recent poll showed a large majority (over 50%) of Australians agreed with John Howard?? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod BraySent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:56 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen Crook wrote: I do understand the story and it is very sad. Over time most people never forget but they do move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like admitting to a crime you did not commit! Karen, When someone you know dies, do you say to the survivor: ' I can't say I'm sorry because I had nothing to do with it and it's not my fault!' or do you say 'I'm sorry for your loss'? If a friend of yours is raped or bashed, do you say: 'Too bad, I had nothing to do with it, you just have to deal with it' or do you express empathy and understanding and acknowledge your friend's suffering by saying, 'I'm so sorry this happened to you'? Saying sorry is not an admittance of guilt. Saying 'sorry' is saying that you feel the pain, that your share the grief. It is only when grief is acknowledged and allowed expression that anyone can move forward in a positive way. It is only when all Australians who today benefit from the dispossession and suffering of Aboriginal Australians acknowledge that dispossession and suffering instead of turning away, that reconciliation can begin. It is the first step of many others that are necessary. The only way that all Australians can do this, is for the PM to do this on behalf of all Australians. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Trudy
[recoznet2] Re: AAP: UN provides Australia with mandatory sentencing advice
Trudy, this is the maximum than could be expected of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights under her mandate. They can't do on Australia what they couldn't also do on any other UN member state. For a case like this, other UN bodies have the necessary authority to level direct criticism at the government responsible. Heinz "Trudy Bray" [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 13/03/2000 07:00:07 Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "news-clip" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: AAP: UN provides Australia with mandatory sentencing advice I wonder how much the government spent on lobbying the UNCHR for a tame report? --- Trudy UN provides Australia with mandatory sentencing advice Source: AAP | Published: Monday March 13, 3:49 PM The United Nations has reminded the Australian government of international obligations on sentencing children, including that incarceration should be a last resort. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer released the UN reference paper today which advises the government of obligations relevant to mandatory sentencing. These include the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 'The UN paper does not focus specifically on Australian law and practice, nor does it make any judgments about Australia's conformity with international standards,' Mr Downer said in a statement. 'The paper confirms the view expressed by the (UN) Secretary-General (Kofi Annan)during his recent visit that the mandatory sentencing issue remains one of domestic responsibility.' But the paper contains concerns raised in 1997 by the Committee on the Rights of the Child about mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. 'The committee is also concerned about the unjustified, disproportionately high percentage of Aboriginal children in the juvenile justice system and that there is a tendency normally to refuse applications for bail for them,' the paper said. 'The committee is particularly concerned at the enactment of new legislation in two states (NT and WA) where a high percentage of Aboriginal people live.' The paper was produced by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and UNICEF at the request of Mr Annan. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley had requested UN advice on mandatory sentencing during Mr Annan's Australian visit. * 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 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/
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
I was simply replying to your interpretation of my own personal experience. I'm not talking about revenge on a national scale as each situation is different. I was simply implying that by moving on my life is better. I have no need to forgive this person and I certainly would not reconcile. It's different and personal - perhaps we should leave it there. K :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 8:02 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Hi Karen, Once again, that's hardly reconciliation. Reconciliation is about doing our best to right the wrongs, not about perpetuating the "us them". I'm sure someone else on this list will put it much more elegantly than I, but surely you can't think revenge should be considered the essence of reconciliation?! Cheers. Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! How would you feel, Karen? Would you forgive them and go forward as if nothing had happened? Would you think you now had equality? Would you betray the love of your children and parents and their deaths and agree to forget so that they could feel better? No, I would not forgive them and no I would not think I had equality. But I would also know that the siblings were not responsible for their parents actions. You cannot hold someone responsible for someone else's actions. One would probably be impressed with the fact they came forward and acknowledged what had happened and agreed to try and make things better. Is that so wrong? As for apologising with reconciliation: Why should I be forced to betray my own innocence and apologise for something I never had any involvement with? My family were never involved so I personally do not wish to apologise. I'm not being stubborn or a racist just simply standing up for my beliefs, my morals and my own family's innocence. Perhaps people should be knocking on the doors of those who actually were responsible for each individual atrocity and bring them to justice - if they are still alive. They are the ones you want to say sorry. By saying that everybody should apologise, you then make people feel guilty for something they did not do - trying to force the hand - when all we want to do is move on in a peaceful, harmonious life. I do understand the story and it is very sad. Over time most people never forget but they do move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like admitting to a crime you did not commit! I have suffered some very distressing and personal issues of my own where I had an amazing level of anger inside me. Eventually over time though I have moved on. I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. I realised that there was no point in grieving all the time - it gets you no where and realising that what happened happened even for no good reason. What makes you think I was being so defensive about my age I put forward my age simply to show which generation I am from and that my views are from a younger person. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:06 PM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen, I don't know why you are so defensive about your age. There are many young people on the list. Some younger than you are. You ask why an apology is necessary and how it will make reconciliation work. An apology is only a part of reconciliation but a very necessary part. Let me pose you a scenario: You are married and have children. You live with your extended family on a very productive farm and everyone gets along pretty well and have enough to eat.
RE: [recoznet2] Re: Karen
because I can - just like you! Remember that Freedom of Speech thingy!?!? All I simply said was that I did not wish to comment on something I did not know as much about as I would like to. So I get shot down for having an opinion and then I get shot down because I don't have an informed enough opinion! Clutching at straws!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jay Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [recoznet2] Re: Karen Karen, If you cannot speak with an informed perspective then why speak at all. I wasn't around 200 years ago however . . history clearly shows a colonisation process of massacres and murder, cultural genocide etc across the entire continent. These are not the stories of 'do-gooders' but facts of history. Read Peter Gardners 'Gippsland Massacres' for a through account and one sad example. There was warfare in this continent between the original inhabitants and the 'civilised' europeans, the number of Indigenous people that died defending their people and land overwhlemingly outnumbered the colonisers. I agree, as do many Indigenouys groups, that contemporary Australia needs to move away from the past, however not until there is adequate recognition of the history of colonisation - which really continues today. How can we understand the present without an accurate representation of history and how that has shaped todays society. It was only eight years ago that the ideological myth of white invasion, 'terra nullius,' was removed from our law books. Up intil then it was enshrined in law that Austyralia was empty land. The Howard government responded by the Wik decision in 1996 with amendments to suit pastoralists (including Kerry packer, the Sultan of Brunei, developers and even some MP's). The last thing these people wnated was to consult the traditional owners about development on what they see as 'their' land! And so Howardc ontinues to move away from Reconciliation and conitnues to support land holders. We have a long way to go before we can 'move on'. If you want recent examples of Aboriginal marginaliosation just look at what's happening to the Arabunna and their traditional land as we speak. Western Mining Corporation are destroying their land without one agreement, treaty or serious negotiation. Yes, we are all equal 'humans' so lets start treating our Indigenous people as such, instead of throwing them in jail, neglecting basic services that whites would be never be without, taking their land, ignoring their cultural history and their right practice cultural events and ceremonies. We have a long way to go and the struggle continues --- 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/ --- 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/
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
TIM SAYS:I can't believe he has the nerve to come out of a meeting and say, once again, that he's committed to reconciliation. It's only a week ago on 3AW that he said:"Whatbaffles me about this (reconciliation) issue is that I'm expected torepudiate my own personal beliefs; I'm told that the only way I can showleadership on this issue is to do something I don't believe in." KAREN SAYS: This says he believes in reconciliation but does not see how a sorry will make it all better! Yet you went on to say: TIM: "my point was that in one statement he says he believes in reconciliation and in another he says he doesn't. That's a contradiction." KAREN SAYS: In refernce to the above first para - to which you were talking about - he does not actually say that Tim. So you are interpreting it the way you want. He never actually got quoted as saying he doesn't believe in reconciliation. As for John Howard, I did not vote for him yet I continue knowing that I cannot do too much about that because he was voted in. A united nation means living in a democratic society where the people decide who they want as a leader. And look at who we got. Big mistake hey?? I hate the guy but the 'no sorry' business is the only thing I agree with from him. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tdunlopSent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:59 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen wrote: Tim, Just because he doesn't believe in saying sorry doesn't mean he doesn't believe in people living as a nation united!! Hi Karen - I'm not quite sure how you got this from what I wrote- my point was that in one statement he says he beleives in reconciliation and in another he says he doesn't. That's a contradiction. It means one answer is a lie. If someone lies (as the quotes - and they are quotes - show that he does) then we have some reason to doubt their integrity. That was my point. But to address your point. I wonder what a united nation means? Who gets to decide what the rules are under which we live? I'm sure you'll agree that the rules - what system of government, how the law will work, who'll write the laws, who'll be allowed to be elected, all those sorts of things - they don't just appear out of the blue. They are there because people decide to do things in this way and not that. In a united nation, the more people having a say in how those rules are formed, the better, I think. But a 'united nation' is not just about formal things like that. It's also about less easily defined things - about moral things I guess. So when we decide to do something - like send aid to East Timor - we do it for moral reasons, because we beleive it's the right thing to do. People are suffering and we try to help. An apology falls into that sort of category. It's another decision we make. As Prime Minister, John Howard has decided that he won't apologise, for pretty much the reasons you give - we shouldn't have to apologise for something we didn't actually do.His moral reasons are that no-one who didn't actually, personally, confiscate land, abduct a child, poison a waterhole, march people off a cliff, introduce a disease, suppress a language, denigrate atradition, or any of the other things that actually happened - if you personally didn't do this, then you shouldn't have to apologise. There are other people, though, who think, well I didn't actually do any of those things, but then again I didn't have to - somebody else had already done them for me. The land had already been confiscated by the time I was born, and I sure didn't abduct any children or poison any water etc etc. By the time I got here, I didn't have to do any of those things. Because it was already done. And here I am, living here, through no fault of my own. There are people in this position - that is, in exactly the same position as John Howard, people who just happened to be born here once most of the dirty work was done - who nonetheless think that it would be a good idea to apologise. Not because they personally did any of those things, but because they benefit from those things having been done in the past. We would not be here now if those things hadn't been done in the past. And they are sorry that their situation today was brought about by those things that happened in the past. So some people want to say sorry. So it will help reconciliation because it will acknowledge that how we live today came about because of what happened in the past. (I wonder if you think that is true or not?) We might not have done those things, but like I say - WE didn't have to. We just
RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Exactly!!! And if we extrapolate a bit with that logic, would it be reasonable to assume that it is one's duty to be compassionate to those one knows and loves? Howard's refusal to apologise indicates that he doesn't know Australia's Aboriginal population, and he doesn't love them! Even general courtesy tells us that we should have empathy and be compassionate... I'm sure you'd express your sorrow to a stranger in the street should you meet them and find out they had experienced such a tragedy? Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 7:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! The difference with your examples is that you are saying it to someone you know and love. Saying sorry to a race is entirely different - you say it to a group of people you could never know personally. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Wasn't there an article in all the major media 2 nights ago stating that a recent poll showed a large majority (over 50%) of Australians agreed with John Howard?? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen Crook wrote: I do understand the story and it is very sad. Over time most people never forget but they do move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like admitting to a crime you did not commit! Karen, When someone you know dies, do you say to the survivor: ' I can't say I'm sorry because I had nothing to do with it and it's not my fault!' or do you say 'I'm sorry for your loss'? If a friend of yours is raped or bashed, do you say: 'Too bad, I had nothing to do with it, you just have to deal with it' or do you express empathy and understanding and acknowledge your friend's suffering by saying, 'I'm so sorry this happened to you'? Saying sorry is not an admittance of guilt. Saying 'sorry' is saying that you feel the pain, that your share the grief. It is only when grief is acknowledged and allowed expression that anyone can move forward in a positive way. It is only when all Australians who today benefit from the dispossession and suffering of Aboriginal Australians acknowledge that dispossession and suffering instead of turning away, that reconciliation can begin. It is the first step of many others that are necessary. The only way that all Australians can do this, is for the PM to do this on behalf of all Australians. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Trudy --- 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/
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Karen, As I remember it you made clear statements that there was no racism in the laws of this land. You made statements that the police are not racist. You made other statements that a little research would have proven are quite the opposite of your statements. Now you are saying that you can't give an informed opinion? I believe many of your statements are not informed. My research is done at night when I have finished my day and I do have other things to do as well. But I would not think of having a discussion without being informed in the first place or at least stating my lack of information and asking for some. Don Don ClarkPresidentIndigenous Social Justice AssociationPO Box K555Haymarket NSW 1240[EMAIL PROTECTED] There can be no real reconciliation without social justice - Original Message - From: Karen Crook To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 6:48 P.M. Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Graham says: If you don't know enough, then do us the courtesy of doing some research and finding out. Karen says: Excuse me but you were the one to bring up this subject in the first place. I never once mentioned this topic. You mention it last night and when I reply with an honest answer you shoot me down with a do more research?!?!?!?! I answered you as honestly as I could by saying that I could not give an informed opinion on something I did not knowtoo much about. And whether it is 200 years, 100 years or 50 years - it doesn't matter what I think. I cannot comment on something I am not that familiar with or haven't had some experience with. I'm giving my opinions on things that I have seen, heard and witnessed during my time. It is not a cop out but the statement of truth. And as I am working all dayWITHOUT the internet I only get to play with it at home at night. So I do not spend all my time researching "the High Court's overturning of the doctrine of Terra Nullius which found that in fact the indigenous peoples had title to this land before the Europeans came." I do have other things to do. So don't attack me for giving you an honest "I don't know enough". You brought it up, not me. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 11:31 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen, are you serious? That's just a cop out. You must have an opinion, or you wouldn't be spending all of this time writing email to us. And if you don't agree that the original dispossession was a wrong done to Aborigines, then there is probably little sensible conversation that any of us can have with you. The point about the High Court's overturning of the doctrine of Terra Nullius is that it found that in fact the indigenous peoples had title to this land before the Europeans came. Title to land means ownership of it. If you take ownership away from someone, that is theft. Are suggesting that there are extenuating circumstances that mean this theft was not a wrong? If so, please take a stab at stating your argument. If you don't know enough, then do us the courtesy of doing some research and finding out. By the way, it is also a cop-out to say that all of these things happened 200 years ago. They didn't. The greatest part of the dispossession happened late last century and this century. That was when the greater geographical part of the country was settled, and there are plenty of people alive today who voted for governments who sanctioned that activity. So it is not accurate to say that it has nothing to do with current Australians. Perhaps it happened before both of our times, but not all our times. Graham Young - Original Message - From: Karen Crook To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 8:52 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Unfortunately I was not around over 200 years ago when this great nation first developed therefore I cannot give an informed opinion. I do not know what really happened. I know only the basics and I refuse to comment on something I do not know more accurately. Sorry. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham YoungSent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 6:26 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Trudy and Karen, If I understand what you have both written correctly, I think we have some common ground. I think that we all agree that the original disposession of the
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame?
KAREN SAYS: In refernce to the above first para - to which you were talking about - he does not actually say that Tim. So you are interpreting it the way you want. He never actually got quoted as saying he doesn't believe in reconciliation. Hi again Karen - you're right about this. My presumption is that reconciliation requires an apology and if he won't apologise then he doesn't beleive in reconciliation. Maybe that's a wrong a presumption. John Howard defines reconciliation as being possible without an apology, as do you.So I'd be interested to know what reconciliation does mean to you. I know you beleive it doesn't mean an apology, but what does it mean? What is required for there to be reconciliation? Karen: As for John Howard, I did not vote for him yet I continue knowing that I cannot do too much about that because he was voted in. A united nation means living in a democratic society where the people decide who they want as a leader. And look at who we got. Big mistake hey?? I hate the guy but the 'no sorry' business is the only thing I agree with from him. Well, that's not quite true - you also agree with him that mandatory sentencing isn't a race issue. Anyway, if you get a chance to answer the question about what reconciliation means to you, I'd be grateful. Tim
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Karen, You seem to have missed the point I was making. Whether or not it is a person you know or a group of people you don't is not what is relevant, but rather that 'sorry' is not an admission of guilt but an understanding of and empathy with suffering and grief. And if non-Aboriginal Australians are not capable of that in light of Aboriginal dispossession and disadvantage that they have caused over a period of 200+ years then there is no hope for reconciliation. As far as Howard is concerned, yes, he aligns himself with the most common denominator instead of leading and educating. He spent millions on promoting his GST (sorry, educating) but what has he spent on educating non-Aboriginal Australians about the true history of this land? He doen't even want to know the true history of this land. Those same people who agreed with John Howard should also have been asked what they knew about Aboriginal dispossession and disadvantage - it would have been very revealing! Trudy Karen Crook wrote: The difference with your examples is that you are saying it to someone you know and love. Saying sorry to a race is entirely different - you say it to a group of people you could never know personally. >The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard >is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Wasn't there an article in all the major media 2 nights ago stating that a recent poll showed a large majority (over 50%) of Australians agreed with John Howard?? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen Crook wrote: I do understand the story and it is very sad. Over time most people never forget but they do move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like admitting to a crime you did not commit! Karen, When someone you know dies, do you say to the survivor: ' I can't say I'm sorry because I had nothing to do with it and it's not my fault!' or do you say 'I'm sorry for your loss'? If a friend of yours is raped or bashed, do you say: 'Too bad, I had nothing to do with it, you just have to deal with it' or do you express empathy and understanding and acknowledge your friend's suffering by saying, 'I'm so sorry this happened to you'? Saying sorry is not an admittance of guilt. Saying 'sorry' is saying that you feel the pain, that your share the grief. It is only when grief is acknowledged and allowed expression that anyone can move forward in a positive way. It is only when all Australians who today benefit from the dispossession and suffering of Aboriginal Australians acknowledge that dispossession and suffering instead of turning away, that reconciliation can begin. It is the first step of many others that are necessary. The only way that all Australians can do this, is for the PM to do this on behalf of all Australians. It has nothing to do with his personal beliefs - they are irrelevant. The office of PM demands that he represent all Australians. The problem with John Howard is that he doesn't understand the demands of his office. He thinks it's his personal fiefdom. Trudy
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
Hello can someone tell me if it is possible to receive all mail from a list except one sender. I admire anyone who attempts to answer this sort of time consuming comment but when I get email sent from one person (and there seem to be more than 6 in one day), whose views and attitudes I am fully acquainted with but dont really want to listen to, I would like to be able to configure my system so it doesnt arrive in the first place. Thanks Claire Karen Crook wrote: In other words I will never forget what happened to me but the greatest revenge I can have to the person in question is to live my life to the fullest. Letting them know they did not destroy me!! Hmm, sweet revenge! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Glenn Murray Sent: Monday, 13 March 2000 9:24 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. Reconciliation without forgiveness??? H... Glenn Murray -Original Message- From: Karen Crook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! How would you feel, Karen? Would you forgive them and go forward as if nothing had happened? Would you think you now had equality? Would you betray the love of your children and parents and their deaths and agree to forget so that they could feel better? No, I would not forgive them and no I would not think I had equality. But I would also know that the siblings were not responsible for their parents actions. You cannot hold someone responsible for someone else's actions. One would probably be impressed with the fact they came forward and acknowledged what had happened and agreed to try and make things better. Is that so wrong? As for apologising with reconciliation: Why should I be forced to betray my own innocence and apologise for something I never had any involvement with? My family were never involved so I personally do not wish to apologise. I'm not being stubborn or a racist just simply standing up for my beliefs, my morals and my own family's innocence. Perhaps people should be knocking on the doors of those who actually were responsible for each individual atrocity and bring them to justice - if they are still alive. They are the ones you want to say sorry. By saying that everybody should apologise, you then make people feel guilty for something they did not do - trying to force the hand - when all we want to do is move on in a peaceful, harmonious life. I do understand the story and it is very sad. Over time most people never forget but they do move on. It's not about whether the other person or their children apologise, it is about yourself becoming stronger and moving on with life. Everyone has suffered some sort of hardship in their life. But no matter how much the anger stays with one you cannot expect someone who had nothing to do with the original sin to apologise. It's like admitting to a crime you did not commit! I have suffered some very distressing and personal issues of my own where I had an amazing level of anger inside me. Eventually over time though I have moved on. I have not forgiven but I have certainly tried to make something out of my life. I realised that there was no point in grieving all the time - it gets you no where and realising that what happened happened even for no good reason. What makes you think I was being so defensive about my age I put forward my age simply to show which generation I am from and that my views are from a younger person. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Trudy and Rod Bray Sent: Sunday, 12 March 2000 3:06 PM To: RecOzNet2 Subject: Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Karen, I don't know why you are so defensive about your age. There are many young people on the list. Some younger than you are. You ask why an apology is necessary and how it will make reconciliation work. An apology is only a part of reconciliation but a very necessary part. Let me pose you a scenario: You are married and have children. You live with your extended family on a very productive farm and everyone gets along pretty well and have enough to eat. Then, some people you've never seen before come onto your farm and begin shooting your family. Your husband and 2 of your 5 children are killed right in front of you.. Most of your extended family, your mother and father, aunts and uncles are killed. Some of the men come and rape your two young daughters and bash your young son. Almost all the people you have known and loved all your life are dead and you have no one to comfort you or to help you. They take your farm and everything on it and leave you a small plot to live on but only if you work the
[recoznet2] Marise Payne
From what I have seen Marise Payne, a NSW Liberal Senator, a member of the Senate Committee, seems to have stuck her neck out against Mandatory Sentencing in the NT. Given that the only hope of legislation on this getting through both houses of parliament lies with either Liberal or National members defying the PM, I think it would be a good idea to send her some emails encouraging her. That might help to encourage others. Her email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Graham Y EditorOn Line Opinion61 7 3252 1470http://www.onlineopinion.com.au
Re: [recoznet2] has the man no shame!!!!!
I am forwarding Graham Young's message which bounced because it was too long. Please, everyone remember to remove the older parts of messages that are not needed for clarity. Trudy ** Karen, I am sorry that you feel that I was attacking you. That wasn't my = intention at all. I am trying to understand what you think, and the = only way to do that is to start with the most basic concepts and then = work upwards. There has got to be some point where we can all agree on = something. Once we have reached a point like that it then allows us to = move back up the trail and find where we disagree. At the moment we are = disagreeing at a point so far down the track that we have moved too far = away from each other to be able to communicate. Trudy put an example to you which was a model for Aboriginal = dispossession and injury. You seemed to accept that there was a moral = wrong involved. I sought to clarify if that is what you thought. So = it wasn't something that I brought up at all. It was something that had = come up in your conversation with Trudy. Why do I think that you are copping out? Because this is a basic = question, and I don't see how anyone can carry out a discussion on = reconciliation without having formed an opinion on it. I certainly = think, reading your posts, that you have formed an opinion. If you = truly haven't formed an opinion on it, then you need to. I don't spend = my time researching Aboriginal issues on the net, or anywhere else for = that matter. The research to make a decision on whether the settlement = was right or wrong is easy to come by. Most of what I know comes from = the major newspapers. The reason that I brought up Terra Nullius was because it is about the = only defence against Aboriginal dispossession being wrong. What the = doctrine said was that this land was not owned by anyone before the = European settlers appeared. The Aborigines and Islanders were here, but = they were thought not to have any right or title in the land. That = entitled the Europeans to settle where they liked and set up their own = system of title. This was the law of the land until the Mabo decision, = which involved not Aborigines but the Merriam people (Micronesians I = think). They had a system of individual ownership of land unlike that = of the Aborigines and the High Court found that this gave rise to = continuing property rights under our system. In this judgement they = made non-binding suggestions that there might be property rights on the = mainland. The rest is history as succeeding cases have confirmed that = those rights do exist on the Mainland, and have decided what they might = be, and their nature. =20 So, maybe you disagree with the High Court and believe that the land was = originally owned by no-one. If so, perhaps we should start at that = point. =20 Graham Young - Original Message -=20 From: Karen Crook=20 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]=20 Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 5:48 PM Subject: RE: [recoznet2] has the man no shame! Graham says: If you don't know enough, then do us the courtesy of = doing some research and finding out. Karen says:=20 Excuse me but you were the one to bring up this subject in the first = place. I never once mentioned this topic. You mention it last night and = when I reply with an honest answer you shoot me down with a do more = research?!?!?!?! I answered you as honestly as I could by saying that I could not give = an informed opinion on something I did not know too much about. And whether it is 200 years, 100 years or 50 years - it doesn't matter = what I think. I cannot comment on something I am not that familiar with = or haven't had some experience with. I'm giving my opinions on things = that I have seen, heard and witnessed during my time. It is not a cop out but the statement of truth.=20 And as I am working all day WITHOUT the internet I only get to play = with it at home at night. So I do not spend all my time researching "the = High Court's overturning of the doctrine of Terra Nullius which found = that in fact the indigenous peoples had title to this land before the = Europeans came." I do have other things to do. =20 So don't attack me for giving you an honest "I don't know enough". You = brought it up, not me. -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html * --- 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
[recoznet2] SMH Editorial: Punishment on principle
The Sydney Morning Herald Editorial: Punishment on principle Date: 14/03/2000 THE division within the Senate committee on mandatory sentencing is a measure of how easily side issues can contaminate a question of principle. The minority report by the two Liberal senators, Helen Coonan and Marise Payne, subordinates the justice principle inherent in mandatory sentencing to secondary questions of less importance. It is a sad surrender which cannot help but be seen as driven by political rather than moral considerations. Senator Coonan and Senator Payne fully acknowledge the moral objections to mandatory sentencing. To that extent, they agree with the majority of the Senate committee. But they do not accept the majority recommendation, which is that the Northern Territory and West Australian mandatory sentencing laws be overturned as far as they apply to children. Both senators say it is preferable that the NT and WA put their own houses in order. Anything more is a last resort. Senator Payne concedes that if, after encouragement to change its approach, "the operation of the Northern Territory mandatory sentencing law remains incompatible with out international obligations, I recommend that the Commonwealth government should intervene". And Senator Coonan says the "injustice [of jailing children when they should not be] is so grave that if the States and Territories will not free them then the Commonwealth, where it has the power, ought to do so". Senator Coonan and Senator Payne cannot have it both ways. They condemn mandatory sentencing of children, as the rest of the committee does. But they conclude that another principle - that of non-interference in State or Territory law making powers - is important enough to prevent them from simple endorsement of Commonwealth action to ensure the laws which include objectionable provisions relating to mandatory sentencing of children are overridden. In the light of the political reality in WA and the NT, they must know that their faith in persuasion and moral reasoning as the way to ensure the objectionable laws are changed is unjustified. The federalist argument can be carried only so far. The history of Commonwealth law-making in the late 20th century has abundant examples of Federal laws made to apply in all parts of Australia. It is true that the search for uniformity has usually occurred in a climate of consultation. States have not been bullied or overridden so much as persuaded. But States' rights to go their own way in all of their constitutional areas of legislative power can no longer be regarded as absolute. And as for the Territories, the Howard Government is caught with its own precedent of overriding the Northern Territory euthanasia law. In the Senate committee report there are many references to Australia's international obligations. But the questions of principle raised by laws for the mandatory sentencing of children do not depend on what the United Nations or its agencies might say. The reason for rejecting the NT and WA laws is not the need to comply with international agreements. It is because the laws are wrong. Put simply, children should not be imprisoned unless there is no other appropriate way to deal with them. Mandatory sentencing to jail does not allow a judge or magistrate to apply other punishment. Punishment without discretion or regard to the individual cannot go to the causes of crime. In the case of a child, vulnerable and unformed as an individual, that is a grotesque injustice. These arguments will not convince those who refuse to see those most affected by the WA and NT laws - young Aborigines - as individuals. But they should convince the national parliament and ensure action, sooner or later, against mandatory sentencing laws. -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html * --- 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/
[recoznet2] Local community doesn't accept Maralinga is safe
Local community doesn't accept Maralinga is safe The Maralinga Aboriginal community has disputed claims by the Federal Government about the safety of the former nuclear test site.The Industry Minister, Nick Michin, has declared the site safe, after the clean-up was completed two-weeks ago.He says it is ready for Aboriginal people to use and to occupy.But Andrew Collett, the lawyer who represents the Maralinga Jarraja people, says the locals may not want the land back.The position of the Maralinga community has always been and remains that it only wants the land back if the land has been cleaned up to a point which is satisfactory to the Australian Government, the South Australian Government and the Maralinga people.That's the bottom line for the community, that's why it'll continue to look at the surveys and reports as they come to hand.
[recoznet2] HTML postings
Hi everyone, I have asked this before but people just seem to forget or not care - would you please not post in HTML to Recoznet2? Some people's email systems can't handle it and for ease of discussion, it is impossible to cut into to address specific points. There is no need for HTML unless it is to keep columns in order so please post in straight text. Thank you, Trudy -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html * --- 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/
Re: [recoznet2] Conscience vote unlikely on mandatory sentencing
Dear All, A note on the ABC story, and lobbying Liberal MP's. When dealing with the Liberal Party you should always bear in mind that its members effectively have the right to a conscience vote on every matter, even if they seldom see the need to exercise that right. In the Labor Party a vote against the government is grounds for automatic expulsion. The Liberal Party deliberately avoided that situation, and Liberal Party members (parliamentary and otherwise) routinely boast about that difference. What a conscience vote means is that there will be no party line. But the fact that there might be a party line should not be used to deflect attention from the fact that any party line is ultimately not binding on Liberal Parliamentarians. Those who support the Brown legislation shouldn't be allowed to hide behind talk of "conscience votes" as though their hands are tied. They aren't. That there is even a suggestion that there should be a "conscience vote" indicates that there is a wide body of belief in the party that this is such a serious issue that there should be no party line. That being the case it elevates the issue to the point of importance where it should be easier, not harder, for members to cross the floor. The ABC journalist is reading this part wrongly. A number of lower house MP's have been cited as seriously concerned. The only two I can recall from this morning's press are Christopher Pyne (SA) and Brendan Nelson (NSW). Petrou Georgiou also has public views on the matter. Someone might have access to a new article with a more exhaustive list. If you want to put pressure on anyone, I would start with them, pointing to the Liberal Party's proud tradition of allowing individual members a conscience vote on each and every matter. 7 Liberals are needed to cross the floor to pass the Brown Legislation. Graham Young - Original Message - From: David Sjoberg To: recoznet Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 9:30 AM Subject: [recoznet2] Conscience vote unlikely on mandatory sentencing From ABC fon line Conscience vote unlikely on mandatory sentencing The Prime Minister is under new pressure to allow a conscience vote on mandatory sentencing.The Senate could vote today on whether to repeal the laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.The Senate will resume debate today on a Private Member's Bill to repeal the laws for minors.Speakers last night took diametrically different views. The opposition parties support repeal including Northern Territory Labor Senator Trish Crossin."It is about putting people above party politics," she said.But Territory Coalition Senator Grant Tambling has attacked even his own colleagues who want to repeal the laws. "It particularly saddens me that a few of my Coalition colleagues have jumped on this bandwagon," he said.The bill is certain to pass the Senate by tomorrow and go to the Lower House next month.The Prime Minister has ruled out a conscience vote meaning it is likely to fail.
Re: [recoznet2] Conscience vote unlikely on mandatory sentencing
Graham, Here is an expanded list from one of this morning's articles: "Moderate number cruncher Mr Christopher Pyne confirmed in a statement that moderates would not support the Senate legislation. Mr Pyne did not return calls yesterday, nor did other Liberal dissidents. They include NSW members Dr Brendan Nelson, Mr Bruce Baird and Ms Danna Vale, and Victorians Mr Peter Nugent and Mr Petro Georgiou. It is understood they could not find any Cabinet minister willing to fight for the cause in Cabinet." Trudy Graham Young wrote: Dear All, A note on the ABC story, and lobbying Liberal MP's. When dealing with the Liberal Party you should always bear in mind that its members effectively have the right to a conscience vote on every matter, even if they seldom see the need to exercise that right. In the Labor Party a vote against the government is grounds for automatic expulsion. The Liberal Party deliberately avoided that situation, and Liberal Party members (parliamentary and otherwise) routinely boast about that difference. What a conscience vote means is that there will be no party line. But the fact that there might be a party line should not be used to deflect attention from the fact that any party line is ultimately not binding on Liberal Parliamentarians. Those who support the Brown legislation shouldn't be allowed to hide behind talk of "conscience votes" as though their hands are tied. They aren't. That there is even a suggestion that there should be a "conscience vote" indicates that there is a wide body of belief in the party that this is such a serious issue that there should be no party line. That being the case it elevates the issue to the point of importance where it should be easier, not harder, for members to cross the floor. The ABC journalist is reading this part wrongly. A number of lower house MP's have been cited as seriously concerned. The only two I can recall from this morning's press are Christopher Pyne (SA) and Brendan Nelson (NSW). Petrou Georgiou also has public views on the matter. Someone might have access to a new article with a more exhaustive list. If you want to put pressure on anyone, I would start with them, pointing to the Liberal Party's proud tradition of allowing individual members a conscience vote on each and every matter. 7 Liberals are needed to cross the floor to pass the Brown Legislation. Graham Young - Original Message - From: David Sjoberg To: recoznet Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 9:30 AM Subject: [recoznet2] Conscience vote unlikely on mandatory sentencing From ABC fon line Conscience vote unlikely on mandatory sentencing The Prime Minister is under new pressure to allow a conscience vote on mandatory sentencing. The Senate could vote today on whether to repeal the laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The Senate will resume debate today on a Private Member's Bill to repeal the laws for minors. Speakers last night took diametrically different views. The opposition parties support repeal including Northern Territory Labor Senator Trish Crossin. "It is about putting people above party politics," she said. But Territory Coalition Senator Grant Tambling has attacked even his own colleagues who want to repeal the laws. "It particularly saddens me that a few of my Coalition colleagues have jumped on this bandwagon," he said. The bill is certain to pass the Senate by tomorrow and go to the Lower House next month. The Prime Minister has ruled out a conscience vote meaning it is likely to fail. -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html * --- 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/
[recoznet2] Fwd: Amnesty: Crunch time for children's human rights in Australia
Fwd: Issued today to Australian media from the International Secretariat of Amnesty International: News Service 048/00 AI INDEX: ASA 12/03/00 14 March 2000 Crunch time for children's human rights in Australia As Australia's Senators debate mandatory detention of juveniles, Amnesty International urged them to give life to the children's human rights the government has promised to protect. The welcome findings of the Senate committee's report on mandatory detention assert federal responsibility for ensuring that Australia's international obligations are met. "Today's parliamentary debate is crunch time for respect for international treaties. If Australia wants to be taken seriously, it cannot pick and choose which treaty obligations matter," the human rights organization said. This is the second parliamentary report in two years recommending alternatives to mandatory detention. If this crucial children's rights issue is not resolved domestically, Australia risks facing further embarrassment before the United Nations (UN) this year. Under mandatory detention laws the courts cannot sentence children according to the seriousness of the crime, their maturity or circumstances. Nor can reparations to victims be taken into account in a mandatory prison term. "The findings on mandatory detention are clear -- it does not serve the community or provide justice for victims. The interests of Australian children should not be subject to politics. Those responsible for upholding Australian values and obligations should take decisive action." ENDS.../ ***= For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in Sydney on 0413 028 191, or in London, UK, on 44 171 413 5566, or visit our website at http://www.amnesty.org -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html * --- 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/
[recoznet2] Report reveals physical abuse of young detainees in NSW
Report reveals physical abuse of young detainees in NSW centre Source: AAP | Published: Tuesday March 14, 2:20 PM A damning report into the causes of four riots at a NSW juvenile detention centre last year has revealed a culture of physical and verbal abuse of detainees by staff. The report uncovered an almost routine use of physical force and confinement of problematic detainees that, in at least one case, resulted in a serious assault on a detainee. The Investigation Into Kariong Juvenile Justice Centre report, released in state parliament today, revealed departmental officers knew the Central Coast centre was suffering from poor staff morale, limited detainee programs and inadequate supervision of team leaders, but failed to act. The report said that in three incidents where force was used at the centre, the detainees were injured. But despite the seriousness of the incidents, records of them were nearly always incomplete, absent or misleading. Staff were often in fear of reprisal from more senior officers, and some staff singled out Aboriginal detainees and used racist language to them. NSW acting Ombudsman Chris Wheeler recommended Kariong be wound down as a maximum security facility. He also recommended that new juvenile detention centre staff in NSW undergo psychological testing to determine their suitability for the job and to weed out inappropriate officers. Mr Wheeler said staff should be rotated from juvenile detention centres every four to five years to ensure they did not become burnt out. 'This was a major investigation ... to find out why things got out of control at Kariong,' he told reporters. 'Our investigation found that Kariong was a severely dysfunctional centre at the time the riots occurred. ... Morale was dangerously low. 'The senior management team was burnt out from being at the centre too long and had become distant from staff, while the supervision and support of staff was severely deficient.' He said the daily management of the centre was often left in thehands of staff with limited skills. There was also poor staff training in safety and security. In his investigation into the riots, he said it was remarkable no-one was killed or seriously injured. Several detainees tried to hang themselves during the riots last March, he said. -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html * --- 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/
