Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM?
I agree that its not really an apology Sandy, but I worry that continuing to argue about the matter might not be particularly astute tactics. It was interesting listening to the Parliamentary debate . Apart from the contributions from Beasley and Snowdon, both of which were very good, I thought the Labor party wanted to have a bob each way. One ALP contributor (I've forgotten who) was very big on the line that "saying sorry doesn't mean that you accept personal responsibility" (or something very similar). This seemed to me to reduce the value of an apology quite dramatically. Yes, its a motherhood staement, but it will never be anything more than this anyway. Won't the statement itself never be anything more than "completely useless in coming to grips with the concerns" regardless of whether it contains the word "sorry" or not. What counts is whether it can be used to pressure the government to do something genuinely useful. Nobody should be patting Johnny over the back about this stuff, but I'm inclined to the view expressed by Pat Dodson and others in recent weeks. The "sorry" debate is diverting us all from the underlying issues. OK, say you ultimately win. Johnny says "sorry". So what. Unless he is prepared to actually DO something any victory compared to the current situation will be a pyric one. He will have "given ground" and Indigenous people will have to accept less becaiuse of it. All that will have been achieved is an improved motherhood statement! Ultimately, by NOT saying sorry he simply keeps another opportunity to "give" without doing anything up his sleeve. Hit him with the real issues. Land, Stolen Generation, Health, Equity. At 03:21 PM 26/8/99, Sandy Sanders wrote: No, no, no. There's a huge gap between clause (f) and clause (g) in Howard's parliamentary motion. That's where the apology has to go. Regret is not apology. Even remorse, which would be a far better word than "regret", is not apology. This motion is just a shallow motherhood statement intended to get Howard and his government off the hook with the majority of Australians. It's completely useless in coming to grips with the concerns of indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians who care about these issues. ~~~ Sandy Sanders Rod Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hurstbridge, Victoria, Australia WWWhttp://www.netspace.net.au/~rodhagen --- 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] pm or PM?
Just saw Howard deliver this motion and speech to the Parliament. I'm very confused about the whole thing. He seemed reasonably sincere and given what at is at stake - and given the apparent enthusiasm with which people like Lowitja O'Donahue are embracing his 'change of heart' - I feel inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but still can't help feel there is an emptiness in his words. Beazley's response was sensational I thought, and he was unequivocal about the inadequacy of the motion and moved a couple of amendments. If you can say "sincere regret" surely you are expressing sorrow; and if you are sorrowful, then surely you can say "sorry"? His refusal to use the word 'sorry' smells rotten to me. Anyway, here is the motion and I guess we'll see how it plays out. Tim FROM THE PMs OFFICE MOTION OF RECONCILIATIONThat this House:(a) reaffirms its whole-hearted commitment to the cause of reconciliationbetween indigenous and non-indigenous Australians as an important nationalpriority for all Australians;(b) recognising the achievements of the Australian nation, commits to worktogether to strengthen the bonds that unite us, to respect and appreciateour differences, and to build a fair and prosperous future in which we canall share;(c) reaffirms the central importance of practical measures leading topractical results that address the profound economic and social disadvantagewhich continues to be experienced by many indigenous Australians;(d) recognises the importance of understanding the shared history ofindigenous and non-indigenous Australians and the need to acknowledge openlythe wrongs and injustices of Australias past;(e) acknowledges that the mistreatment of many indigenous Australians over asignificant period represents the most blemished chapter in our nationalhistory;(f) expresses its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australianssuffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for thehurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as aconsequence of those practices; and(g) believes that we, having achieved so much as a nation, can now moveforward together for the benefit of all Australians.26 August 1999
Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM?
At 12:24 AM 27/8/99, tim dunlop wrote: (extract from PM's motion) (d) recognises the importance of understanding the shared history of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians .; "Shared history" is an interesting phrase. Presumably it is meant to convey some sort of commonality. Some others , of course, who come to mind as having had a "shared history" similar to that of black and white Australians in the last couple of centuries include - Slaves and slave owners, the Jewish people and Adolf Hitler, Tutsis and Hutus, Black and White South Africans, Hisoshima residents and the pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb, Siberian gulag inamtes and guards, AIDs victims and the relevant retrovirus etc etc. My gut feeling about the Howard statement is that the response should be to say "OK, that's a start. But if you are genuine about the matter there are various consequences. If you want to fulfil clause (g) concerning moving forward together, what will you do to address the substantive issues? How will you place pressure on the state governments (particularly those of NSW and Victoria), or use Commonwealth powers, to bring about land justice for Indigenous people ? When will you call off the Commonwealth's legal hounds in the stolen generation cases, or better still, have them support , rather than oppose, the claims of the individuals concerned? When will you take action to rectify the immense problems which are now flowing through to Indigenous groups as a result of the 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act? etc etc etc. If you do not take action on these matters , then we will remind you again and again and again of your words and point out that they are not being matched by your deeds." Cheers Rod Rod Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hurstbridge, Victoria, Australia WWWhttp://www.netspace.net.au/~rodhagen --- 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/
Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM?
My first impression is that this 'motion' has the same depth of sincerity as Howard's description of Michael Hutchins as 'a great Australian product' was an expression of condolence. There seems to be an unseemly haste about the whole thing. Could it be that Howard realises he is running out of time before the whole world condemns his racism after the Olympics? Is this another form of government lobbying to save its reputation? I will reserve my judgement. I have a very uneasy feeling that something is not right and we are being duped. Maybe it is paranoia, but then again Trudy tim dunlop wrote: Just saw Howard deliver this motion and speech to the Parliament. I'm very confused about the whole thing. He seemed reasonably sincere and given what at is at stake - and given the apparent enthusiasm with which people like Lowitja O'Donahue are embracing his 'change of heart' - I feel inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but still can't help feel there is an emptiness in his words. Beazley's response was sensational I thought, and he was unequivocal about the inadequacy of the motion and moved a couple of amendments. If you can say "sincere regret" surely you are expressing sorrow; and if you are sorrowful, then surely you can say "sorry"? His refusal to use the word 'sorry' smells rotten to me. Anyway, here is the motion and I guess we'll see how it plays out.TimFROM THE PMs OFFICEMOTION OF RECONCILIATION That this House: (a) reaffirms its whole-hearted commitment to the cause of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians as an important national priority for all Australians; (b) recognising the achievements of the Australian nation, commits to work together to strengthen the bonds that unite us, to respect and appreciate our differences, and to build a fair and prosperous future in which we can all share; (c) reaffirms the central importance of practical measures leading to practical results that address the profound economic and social disadvantage which continues to be experienced by many indigenous Australians; (d) recognises the importance of understanding the shared history of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians and the need to acknowledge openly the wrongs and injustices of Australias past; (e) acknowledges that the mistreatment of many indigenous Australians over a significant period represents the most blemished chapter in our national history; (f) expresses its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australians suffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for the hurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as a consequence of those practices; and (g) believes that we, having achieved so much as a nation, can now move forward together for the benefit of all Australians. 26 August 1999 -- + "the things that will destroy us: politics without principle, pleasure without conscience, wealth without work, knowledge without character, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and business without morality." ---Mahatma Gandhi +
Re: [recoznet2] pm or PM?
This was Howard at his most insincere. A politician as experienced and professional as he is was unable to even fake interest in the subject of his speechAboriginal Australians. I have never seen him speak with less conviction---nor has Peter Costello---he yawned the whole way through Howard's attempt to appear caring about Indigenous Australians. He certainly showed a lot more emotion and intent when he was ranting at Aborigines during the Reconciliation conference and screeching his demands at themthis was the real, racist, 1950's Howard. As for Howard's claiming that some Indigenous leaders have met him halfway . What does this particular piece of mealymouthedness mean? -''half way to what? ---half way to an apology, or halfway to the genocide of Indigenous People? There is no half-way that is bearable for this so- called ''Nation. The Parliament and the Government must apologise to Indigenous Australians for injustices perpetrated against them by the Invaders and their descendants and recognise ongoing Indigenous ownership of this Land. Only then can we hope for a Treaty between the Invaders and the Invaded and a legitimate place for all Non-Indigenous Australians in the future of this Country. As for the old, 'Lay down with dogs etc. There are a lot of fleas from the P.M. Dog feeding on new hosts today. Laurie. Laurie and Desley Forde [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tim Dunlop wrote -Original Message-From: tim dunlop [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: RecOzNet2 [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Thursday, August 26, 1999 2:26 PMSubject: [recoznet2] pm or PM? Just saw Howard deliver this motion and speech to the Parliament. I'm very confused about the whole thing. He seemed reasonably sincere and given what at is at stake - and given the apparent enthusiasm with which people like Lowitja O'Donahue are embracing his 'change of heart' - I feel inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but still can't help feel there is an emptiness in his words. Beazley's response was sensational I thought, and he was unequivocal about the inadequacy of the motion and moved a couple of amendments. If you can say sincere regret surely you are expressing sorrow; and if you are sorrowful, then surely you can say sorry? His refusal to use the word 'sorry' smells rotten to me. Anyway, here is the motion and I guess we'll see how it plays out. Tim FROM THE PMs OFFICE MOTION OF RECONCILIATIONThat this House:(a) reaffirms its whole-hearted commitment to the cause of reconciliationbetween indigenous and non-indigenous Australians as an important nationalpriority for all Australians;(b) recognising the achievements of the Australian nation, commits to worktogether to strengthen the bonds that unite us, to respect and appreciateour differences, and to build a fair and prosperous future in which we canall share;(c) reaffirms the central importance of practical measures leading topractical results that address the profound economic and social disadvantagewhich continues to be experienced by many indigenous Australians;(d) recognises the importance of understanding the shared history ofindigenous and non-indigenous Australians and the need to acknowledge openlythe wrongs and injustices of Australias past;(e) acknowledges that the mistreatment of many indigenous Australians over asignificant period represents the most blemished chapter in our nationalhistory;(f) expresses its deep and sincere regret that indigenous Australianssuffered injustices under the practices of past generations, and for thehurt and trauma that many indigenous people continue to feel as aconsequence of those practices; and(g) believes that we, having achieved so much as a nation, can now moveforward together for the benefit of all Australians.26 August 1999
