Australiërs met haar op hun tanden

[Blaft]

The world needs more leaders like this !!!!!!

De wereld zou meer leiders zoals deze moeten hebben!!!!!!






[Prime Minister John Howard - Australia ]


Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Moslims die onder de Sharia-wet wensten te leven werden woensdag gevraagd om Australië te verlaten, toen de regering zich richtte tot de radicalen in een poging om potentiële terreur aanvallen te verijdelen.


Quote:


'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians, as we have never seen before.'


Citaat:
“IMIGRANTEN, NIET DE AUSTRALIERS, MOETEN ZICH AANPASSEN!
Aanvaard dit of trap het af. Ik ben het beu dat deze natie zich ongerust maakt of we een individu of een cultuur beledigen. Sinds de terreur aanslagen op Bali, hebben we een grote toename meegemaakt van patriotisme bij de meerderheid van de Australiërs, zoals we dat voordien nog nooit hebben meegemaakt.”


'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.'

“Deze cultuur heeft zich ontwikkeld gedurende 2 eeuwen van strijd, proberen en overwinningen door miljoenen mannen en vrouwen die vrijheid nastreefden.”


'We speak mainly ENGLISH . Not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, then you have no choice but to learn "our" language!'

“Wij spreken voornamelijk ENGELS. Niet Spaans, Libanees, Arabisch, Chinees, Japanees, Russisch, of welke andere taal dan ook. Daarom zeg ik U; als je deel wilt uitmaken van onze samenleving, dan hebben jullie geen andere keuze dan ONZE taal te leren.”


'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

“Wij aanvaarden jullie geloof, en zullen ons niet afvragen waarom. Het enige dat we van jullie vragen is dat jullie ons geloof accepteren, en vredig en harmonieus met ons willen samenleven.”



'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are finished complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom .


'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'

“Dit is ONS LAND, ONZE GROND, en ONZE MANIER VAN LEVEN, en we willen jullie alle mogelijkheden geven om hiervan te genieten. Maar als jullie nu eens eindelijk ophouden met klagen, jammeren, onze vlag te verscheuren, onze EED, ons Christelijk Geloof en onze levenswijze onderuit te halen, raad ik jullie ten zeerste aan om gebruik te maken van nog een ander Australisch voorrecht, …”
“HET RECHT OM OP TE STAPPEN!”


'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

“Als je niet gelukkig bent STAP HET DAN AF. Wij hebben jullie niet gedwongen om naar hier te komen. Jullie hebben zelf gevraagd om naar hier te komen. Aanvaard dan ook het land dat jullie aanvaarde.”


If you agree . Please SEND THIS FORWARD . To EVERYONE you know

[Kazan]

Is John Howard niet ex-premier?

[the_special_one]

en zin dat dat heeft

[Txiki]

Ik kan me voorstellen dat de Aborigines hetzelfde dachten... ooit

[moser]

Dit doet me aan een citaat van Philippe Deviliers denken : "si t'aime pas la france tu la quite"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ-EjjO7eHQ

[maddox]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Txiki

Ik kan me voorstellen dat de Aborigines hetzelfde dachten... ooit

Als de aboriginies dezelfde eisen hadden kunnen opleggen in "hunnen tijd" had Australië er wel anders uitgezien nu.

Maar waarom zouden de Aussies het nu niet mogen eisen?

[Txiki]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door maddox

Als de aboriginies dezelfde eisen hadden kunnen opleggen in "hunnen tijd" had Australië er wel anders uitgezien nu.

Maar waarom zouden de Aussies het nu niet mogen eisen?

Ha, maar van mij mogen ze eisen dat allemaal wel eisen. Zolang ze zelf maar niet vergeten dat zij zelf ooit aan de andere kant gestaan hebben.

[moser]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door maddox

Maar waarom zouden de Aussies het nu niet mogen eisen?

Veel woorden hoeft men hier niet vuil aan te maken , slechts 3 letters : wet.

De wet is de spelregel van elk land. Volg die wet.Die geldt voor iedereen. Iedereen mag dezelfde dingen. Iedereen heeft dezelfde plichten. De rest is mumbojumbo.

[the_special_one]

Een wet is niet noodzakelijk goed.

[ancapa]

Australië Prime Minister John Howard
The world needs many leaders Like This !
Moslims die onder de Sharia-wet wensten te leven werden woensdag gevraagd om Australie te verlaten, toen de regering zich richtte tot de radicalen in een poging om potentiéle terreur aanvallen te verijdelen.
Afzonderlijk, zette Premier Howard woensdag kwaad bloed bij sommige Australische Moslims door te verklaren dat hij de inlichtingendiensten steunde die de binnenlandse moskeen in de gaten houden.
Citaat:
IMMIGRANTEN, NIET DE AUSTRALIERS , MOETEN ZICH AANPASSEN!
Aanvaard dit of trap het af. Ik ben het beu dat deze natie zich ongerust maakt of we een individu of een cultuur beledigen. Sinds de terreur aanslagen op Bali, hebben we een grote toename meegemaakt van patriotisme bij de meerderheid van de Australiers, zoals we dat voordien nog nooit hebben meegemaakt.
Deze cultuur heeft zich ontwikkeld gedurende 2 eeuwen van strijd, proberen en overwinningen door miljoenen mannen en vrouwen die vrijheid nastreefden.
Wij spreken voornamelijk ENGELS. Niet Spaans, Libanees, Arabisch, Chinees, Japanees, Russisch, of welke andere taal dan ook. Daarom zeg ik U; als je deel wilt uitmaken van onze samenleving, dan hebben jullie geen andere keuze dan ONZE taal te leren.
De meeste Australiers geloven in God. Dit is geen rechtse radicale politieke praat maar een vaststaand feit, omdat Christelijke mannen en vrouwen deze natie gesticht hebben, gefundeerd op Christelijke principes, en dit is duidelijk gedocumenteerd. En het is zeer zeker gepast om dit feit te tonen op de muren van onze scholen. Als God u beledigd, dan stel ik voor dat u overweegt om een ander deel van de wereld uw thuis te noemen, want God maakt deel uit van onze cultuur.
Wij aanvaarden jullie geloof, en zullen ons niet afvragen waarom. Het enige dat we van jullie vragen is dat jullie ons geloof accepteren, en vredig en harmonieus met ons willen samenleven.
Dit is ONS LAND, ONZE GROND, en ONZE MANIER VAN LEVEN, en we willen jullie alle mogelijkheden geven om hiervan te genieten. Maar als jullie nu eens eindelijk ophouden met klagen, jammeren, onze vlag te verscheuren, onze EED, ons Christelijk Geloof en onze levenswijze onderuit te halen, raad ik jullie ten zeerste aan om gebruik te maken van nog een ander Australisch voorrecht, HET RECHT OM OP TE STAPPEN !
Als je niet gelukkig bent STAP HET DAN AF.
Wij hebben jullie niet gedwongen om naar hier te komen. Jullie hebben zelf gevraagd om naar hier te komen. Aanvaard dan ook het land dat jullie aanvaarde.

ik vond die tekst op het internet, al vertaald...

[moser]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the_special_one

Een wet is niet noodzakelijk goed.

Neen , maar ze is er wel voor een reden. Ze kan eventueel licht aangepast worden. En als ze dan aangepast wordt dan moet het basisprincipe wel gerespecteerd worden en dat is fundamenteel : GELIJKWAARDIGHEID.

Wie niet kan verdragen dat er kerken in Vlaanderen staan moet zijn conclusies trekken..... MAAR dan geldt evenzeer: wie niet kan verdragen dat er synagoges in Vlaanderen staan ook zijn conclusies moet trekken. Enzov......

[Txiki]

Bovendien, als de wet het eindpunt is, waarom dan al die drukkingsgroepen om vanalles en nog wat te bereiken?

[moser]

Dus eigenlijk had Howard ook kunnen zeggen : "If you don't like the fact that there are mosks in Australia , get out!"

Maar dat doet ie natuurlijk niet , de demagogische vos.

[the_special_one]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door moser

Neen , maar ze is er wel voor een reden. Ze kan eventueel licht aangepast worden. En als ze dan aangepast wordt dan moet het basisprincipe wel gerespecteerd worden en dat is fundamenteel : GELIJKWAARDIGHEID.

Wie niet kan verdragen dat er kerken in Vlaanderen staan moet zijn conclusies trekken..... MAAR dan geldt evenzeer: wie niet kan verdragen dat er synagoges in Vlaanderen staan ook zijn conclusies moet trekken. Enzov......

En wat als die reden nu niet rechtvaaridg is?

[moser]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the_special_one

En wat als die reden nu niet rechtvaaridg is?

geef eens een voorbeeld

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pontifex Maximus

The world needs more leaders like this !!!!!!

De wereld zou meer leiders zoals deze moeten hebben!!!!!!

[Prime Minister John Howard - Australia ]


Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Moslims die onder de Sharia-wet wensten te leven werden woensdag gevraagd om Australië te verlaten, toen de regering zich richtte tot de radicalen in een poging om potentiële terreur aanvallen te verijdelen.


Quote:

'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians, as we have never seen before.'


Citaat:
“IMIGRANTEN, NIET DE AUSTRALIERS, MOETEN ZICH AANPASSEN!
Aanvaard dit of trap het af. Ik ben het beu dat deze natie zich ongerust maakt of we een individu of een cultuur beledigen. Sinds de terreur aanslagen op Bali, hebben we een grote toename meegemaakt van patriotisme bij de meerderheid van de Australiërs, zoals we dat voordien nog nooit hebben meegemaakt.”


'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.'

“Deze cultuur heeft zich ontwikkeld gedurende 2 eeuwen van strijd, proberen en overwinningen door miljoenen mannen en vrouwen die vrijheid nastreefden.”


'We speak mainly ENGLISH . Not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, then you have no choice but to learn "our" language!'

“Wij spreken voornamelijk ENGELS. Niet Spaans, Libanees, Arabisch, Chinees, Japanees, Russisch, of welke andere taal dan ook. Daarom zeg ik U; als je deel wilt uitmaken van onze samenleving, dan hebben jullie geen andere keuze dan ONZE taal te leren.”


'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'

“Wij aanvaarden jullie geloof, en zullen ons niet afvragen waarom. Het enige dat we van jullie vragen is dat jullie ons geloof accepteren, en vredig en harmonieus met ons willen samenleven.”



'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are finished complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom .


'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'

“Dit is ONS LAND, ONZE GROND, en ONZE MANIER VAN LEVEN, en we willen jullie alle mogelijkheden geven om hiervan te genieten. Maar als jullie nu eens eindelijk ophouden met klagen, jammeren, onze vlag te verscheuren, onze EED, ons Christelijk Geloof en onze levenswijze onderuit te halen, raad ik jullie ten zeerste aan om gebruik te maken van nog een ander Australisch voorrecht, …”
“HET RECHT OM OP TE STAPPEN!”


'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'

“Als je niet gelukkig bent STAP HET DAN AF. Wij hebben jullie niet gedwongen om naar hier te komen. Jullie hebben zelf gevraagd om naar hier te komen. Aanvaard dan ook het land dat jullie aanvaarde.”


If you agree . Please SEND THIS FORWARD . To EVERYONE you know

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.'

“Deze cultuur heeft zich ontwikkeld gedurende 2 eeuwen van strijd, proberen en overwinningen door miljoenen mannen en vrouwen die vrijheid nastreefden

Toch iets aan toevoegen want je schijnt absoluut niet te weten wat in Australië de laatste twee eeuwen gemoord werd:

GENOCIDE IN AUSTRALIA
Report details crimes against Aborigines
By Brett Stone
7 September 1999

The genocidal practices perpetrated against Australian Aborigines were the outcome of policies adopted and implemented by all Australian governments from British settlement in 1788 until the present. A people who had virtually no contact with the outside world, were suddenly confronted with a hostile and alien force. Aborigines were forced out of their traditional homes, hunted like wild animals, poisoned or shot, and confined to the harshest and most desolate climes. The effect of British settlement upon these people led to near extinction within 120 years.

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies has published a report detailing this history. Entitled Genocide in Australia, it was written by Professor Colin Tatz, director of the Centre for Comparative Genocide Studies at Sydney's Macquarie University.

The report's timing is significant. Its release coincided with the first of the “stolen generations” legal actions brought against the Commonwealth and State governments by Aborigines who were forcibly removed from their families. Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner are seeking compensation from the Commonwealth government for injuries received after they were taken from their families in the 1940s and 1950s. Tatz will provide testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs, and thousands of such actions could be undertaken in the future.

The legal guideline for Tatz's study is Article II (a) to (e) of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948:

In the present convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly removing children of the group to another group.

Tatz's report asserts that the policies adopted by colonial administrations and both state and federal governments, as well as actions by settlers, from British colonisation up until the 1970s constituted genocide against the Aborigines.

He writes: “Genocide is the systematic attempt to destroy, by various means, a defined group's essential foundations. In this tighter legal sense, Australia is guilty of at least three, possibly four acts of genocide:

“(1) Killing by private settlers and rogue police officers, while the state authorities for the most part stood silently by.

“(2) The implementation in the twentieth century of official state policy, entailing the forcible removal of Aboriginal children from one group to another, with the express intention that ‘ they cease being aboriginal'.

“(3) Twentieth century attempts to achieve the biological disappearance of those deemed ‘half- caste' Aborigines.

“(4) A prima facie case that Australia's actions to protect Aborigines in fact caused them severe bodily or mental harm. (Future scholars may care to analyse the extent of Australia's actions in creating the conditions of life that were calculated to destroy a specific group, and in sterilising Aboriginal women without consent.)”

The report provides compelling material to justify these assertions. Even though no official figures exist, estimates of the Aboriginal population in 1788 range between 250,000 and 750,000. By 1911 the number was 31,000. Aborigines have only been included in the National Census since 1971. In 1996 the National Census recorded that 352,970 or 1.97 of the population were of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent.

Despite the substantial increase in the population of Aborigines since 1911, the conditions of life in which they find themselves remain impoverished and highly oppressive. Tatz states that according to every social indicator available Aborigines are found at the top or bottom. Diseases, such as coronary disease, cancer, diabetes, and respiratory infections, are far more prevalent than 30 years earlier. Life expectancy is 50-55 years for males, approximately 55 years for females. The likelihood of an Aborigine being unemployed is far greater—22.7 percent as opposed to 8.1 percent. Fewer Aborigines own their homes. For Aborigines fortunate enough to have employment, their income is 25 percent less on average. Large proportions of Aborigines languish in prisons (14 percent of the prison population in 1997) and police watch-houses. This excludes those confined, through economic necessity, to black settlements, like Cherbourg or Yarrabah in Queensland.

The oppressed condition of Aborigines is marked in other ways—a prevalence of personal violence, lack of care for children, increased death from non-natural causes, as well as high levels of alcohol and drug abuse. It should come as no surprise that one manifestation of oppression—alcohol and drug abuse—is commonly offered as the explanation for all manifestations of oppression.


“Killing members of the group”

The report states: “In 1803, Tasmania was settled. In 1806 serious killing began. In retaliation for the spearing of livestock, Aboriginal children were abducted for use in forced labour, women were raped and tortured and given poisoned flour, and the men were shot. They were systematically disposed of in ones, twos and threes, or in dozens, rather than in one systematic massacre. In 1824, settlers were authorised to shoot Aborigines. In 1828, the Governor declared martial law. Soldiers or settlers arrested, or shot, any blacks found in settled districts. Vigilante groups avenged Aboriginal retaliation by wholesale slaughter of men, women and children. Between 1829 and 1834, an appointed conciliator, George Robinson, collected the surviving remnants: 123 people whom were then settled on Flinders Island. By 1835, between 3,000 and 4,000 Aborigines were dead.” And further: “They were killed, with intent, not solely because of their spearing of cattle or their 'nuisance' value, but rather because they were Aborigines.”

Between 1824 and 1908 approximately 10,000 Aborigines were murdered in the Colony of Queensland. “Considered ‘wild animals', ‘vermin', ‘scarcely human', ‘hideous to humanity', ‘loathsome' and a ‘nuisance', they were fair game for white ‘sportsmen'.”

The upshot of this slaughter was the appointment in 1896 of Archibald Meston as Royal Commissioner. In his Report on the Aborigines of North Queensland he wrote: “The treatment of the Cape York people was a shame to our common humanity.” He continued: “Their manifest joy at assurances of safety is pathetic beyond expression. God knows they were in need of it”. Aboriginal people met him “like hunted wild beasts, having lived for years in a state of absolute terror”. His prescription for their salvation lay in “ strict and absolute isolation from all whites, from predators who, in no particular order, wanted to kill them, take their women, sell them grog or opium”. Needless to say, none of the perpetrators of the slaughter were made to answer for their actions.
”Protection”: Segregation

The events in Queensland and Tasmania were typical of every colony. The result of Meston's Royal Commission was the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897. Similar measures were enacted throughout Australia. In some colonies, “protective” legislation, enforced by Protectors, began earlier, from the 1840s.

Like the fences erected to keep dingoes (wild native dogs) off pastureland, similar fences were erected around missions and settlements for Aborigines. The segregation had two aspects, legal and geographic. The law was meant to keep whites out and blacks in. Geographic isolation was to ensure that nobody could get in or out.
The attitude of the Protectors towards Aborigines was one of utmost contempt, in both clerical and scientific guises. Father Eugene Perez, chief policy-maker of Catholic missions, wrote in 1879 that Aborigines corresponded to the Palaeolithic Age. He described them as “primitives dwarfed to the bare essentials of human existence”; people with “inborn cunning”, “lacking interest and ambition” with “undeniable immaturity”, forever seeking “the unattainable EL DORADO coming to them on a silver tray”; people “with no sense of balance or proportion” who “want ‘today' what cannot be given till tomorrow”; people to whom physical goods are “like the toy given to a child, which will soon be reduced to bits, and thrown into the rubbish dump”.

W. Baldwin Spencer, a professor of biology and the Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Northern Territory in 1911-12, concluded: “The aboriginal is, indeed, a very curious mixture: mentally about the level of a child who has little control over his feelings and is liable to give way to violent fits of temper... He has no sense of responsibility and, except in rare cases, no initiative.” Spencer added that, “their customs are revolting to us” and they were “far lower than the Papuan, the New Zealander or the usual African native”. During his posting, he established the Kahlin Compound in Darwin, because he believed that “no half-caste children should be allowed in any native camp”. The Kahlin Compound specifically housed “half-caste” Aboriginal children, removed from their mothers.

Protection was dispensed in remote places such as Yarrabah, Palm Island, Mornington Island, Doomadgee, Bamaga, Edward River, Weipa, Bloomfield River and Woorabinda. Aboriginal morality was supposedly protected by controlling their movements, labour, marriages, private lives, reading matter, leisure and sports activities, even cultural and religious rituals. Income protection was the responsibility of police constables. They controlled wages, withdrawals from compulsory savings bank accounts, and rights to enter contracts of labour or purchase and sale.

In Queensland, protection included internal state banishment for periods ranging from 12 months to life, at the director's pleasure, for offences such as “disorderly conduct”, “uncontrollable” and “menace to young girls”. Other offences could only be committed by Aborigines. These included being cheeky, refusing to work, calling the hygiene officer a “big-eyed bastard”, and leaving a horse and dray in the yard whereby a person might have been injured. Committing adultery, playing cards, arranging to see a male person during the night, and being untidy at the recreation hall were also on the list, as was refusing to provide a sample of faeces required by the hygiene officer. Such offences brought three weeks imprisonment, which could be transformed into six, nine and twelve weeks, as prison terms were not served concurrently.

”Protection”: Assimilation

In 1928, the federal government asked J. W. Bleakley, Queensland Protector of Aborigines, to report on policy, including “half-caste” policy, in the Northern Territory. His report proposed “blood quotas” as a guiding principle. Those who possessed 50 percent or more of Aboriginal “blood” would “drift back” to the black “no matter how carefully brought up and educated.” Those with less than 50 percent Aboriginal “blood” could “avoid the dangers of the blood call” if they were segregated as the prelude to “their absorption by the white race”.
In 1937, 1951 and 1961 official conferences adopted policies aimed at the assimilation of Aboriginal people into the mainstream of society. Tatz points out that these policies were directed towards ensuring the disappearance of the Aboriginal people. Terms such as "breeding them white" indicated a biological solution.

Assimilation policies were not entirely new. Under the Victorian Aborigines Protection Act 1886 “aid” was restricted to “full-bloods” and “half-castes” over the age of 34. All others, regardless of their marital or sibling status, were forcibly expelled from missions and reserves. Children were not exempt. They faced relocation to white foster parents, white adoptive parents and “half-caste” or “assimilation” homes.

Tatz cites three senior officials to illustrate the thinking behind assimilation. One was O. A. Neville, the Chief Protector in Western Australia between 1915 and 1940. He could do nothing for Aborigines, “who were dying out”. However, he could “absorb the half-castes”. Neville had a three-point plan. First, the “full-bloods” would die out. Second, the “half-castes” would be taken from their mothers. Third, “half-caste” marriages would encourage intermarriage within the white community. The Chief Protector promoted the attractiveness of such arrangements. “The young half-blood maiden is a pleasant, placid, complacent person as a rule, while the quadroon [one quarter Aboriginal] is often strikingly attractive, with her oftimes auburn hair, rosy freckled colouring, and good figure”. Elevation of these people “to our own plane” he deemed wise. To this end, Neville established, in 1933, Sister Kate's Orphanage. Its guiding principle was to take in hand those “whose lightness of colour” could lead to assimilation and intermarriage.

The indignities suffered by those taken in hand would have been obvious and many, but a proverbial carrot was dangled before them. The Natives (Citizenship Rights) Act 1944 (WA) made it possible for an Aborigine to apply, before a magistrate, for a Certificate of Citizenship. The successful applicant would have to show how “white” he or she had become. Dissolution of tribal and native association was only the beginning. He or she had to have an honourable discharge from the armed forces, or be deemed a “fit and proper person”.

“Fit and proper persons” had to have “adopted the manner and habits of civilised life” for two years and be able to speak and understand English. They had to be of industrious habits and be of a good reputation and correct behaviour. Those suffering from active leprosy, syphilis, granuloma and yaws (framboesia) were denied citizenship.

This outlook formed the basis of Commonwealth policy from the 1930s. The Northern Territory Administrator's report of 1933 said: “In the (Northern) Territory the mating of an Aboriginal with any person other than an Aboriginal is prohibited. The mating of coloured aliens with any female of part Aboriginal blood is also forbidden. Every endeavour is being made to breed out the colour by elevating female half-castes to the white standard with a view to their absorption by mating into the white population.”

Throwing light on the “stolen generations”

This aim continued throughout the period of the “stolen generations” when Aboriginal children were taken from their families. In a 1983 monograph, historian Peter Read cited annual reports of the New South Wales Board: “This policy of dissociating the children from [native] camp life must eventually solve the Aboriginal problem”. By placing children in “first-class private homes”, the superior standard of life would “pave the way for the absorption of these people into the general population”. Further, “to allow these children to remain on the reserve to grow up in comparative idleness in the midst of more or less vicious surroundings would be, to say the least, an injustice to the children themselves, and a positive menace to the State”.

Tatz writes: “In sharp contrast were the memories of the salvaged ones: there was little that was wonderful in the experience; there was much to remember about physical brutality and sexual abuse; and for the majority the homes were scarcely homes, especially in the light of the then healthy practices of kinship, family reciprocity and child rearing in extended families. There is considerably more recorded and substantiated evidence of abuse in the safe homes ... In 37 years of involvement in Aboriginal affairs, I have met perhaps half a dozen men who liked Sister Kate's or Kinchela Boys' Home. I have yet to meet an Aboriginal woman who liked Cootamundra Girls' Home or Colebrook. No one failed to mention the incessant sexual abuse, or the destruction of family life."

In 1990 the Secretariat of the National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care demanded an inquiry into child removal. A blank spot in Australian history was referred to; “the damage and trauma these policies caused are felt every day by Aboriginal people. They internalise their grief, guilt and confusion, inflicting further pain on themselves and others around them. We want an inquiry to determine how many of our children were taken away and how this occurred. We also want to consider whether these policies fall within the definition of genocide in Article II (e) of the United Nations Convention”.

In May 1995 the federal Labor government headed by Paul Keating established the “National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families”. Tatz points to the ambiguities of this inquiry. The use of the term “separation” presupposed a degree of agreement by the families with the removal of their children. Further, “separation” suggests that the removals were of a temporary character with a door remaining open for reunification. This could not be farther from the truth.

In 1997 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission published the results of the inquiry. It concluded that between 1910 and 1970 between one in three and one in ten indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and communities.


Genocide and Reconciliation

Tatz's study, Genocide in Australia, insofar as it deals with the historical record, provides a powerfully detailed and documented history of the relationship between Aborigines and official society. One is left in no doubt that what transpired, even within the parameters of the UN Convention, constituted a terrible crime against the Aboriginal people.

The major weakness of the report lies in its political trajectory. Tatz aligns himself with sections of the Aboriginal leadership, various middle class reformers, Governor General Sir William Deane, the church and leading sections of the mining industry and big business in advancing the perspective of reconciliation.

The term “reconciliation” implies that the interests of Aborigines can be squared with the present social order; that in some way, the crimes of the past, as well as those of the present, can be overcome if only the political will exists. What is lacking, claim its advocates, is a formal apology from the Australian government, led by Prime Minister John Howard.

In a revealing passage, Tatz writes: "It may be possible for a ‘softer', re-invented Howard to construct an observable strategy for ‘reconciliation', one that enables better relations with Aboriginal leaders and communities.” But, he continues, “the new strategy cannot work in the absence of a formal national apology”.

The attempt to wipe out the Australian Aborigines was not the result of some racist mindset on the part of unenlightened individuals in positions of authority. It was spawned out of the requirements of establishing private ownership in property, initially in land. Genocide emerged out of the need of the emerging Australian squattocracy to “clear the land”. And the appalling conditions faced by the majority of Aborigines today similarly derive from the requirements of the “market”.

“Reconciliation” accepts the private profit system, which remains utterly incompatible with the rights of Australia's indigenous population to justice, equality and basic human dignity. Indeed, one of the primary purposes of the “reconciliation” campaign is to help cement relations between mining companies, agricultural combines and Aboriginal entrepreneurs to facilitate planned large-scale mining projects and farming of Aboriginal land. Billions of dollars are at stake, with a small share destined for a select few Aboriginal leaders, while the living conditions of most Aboriginal people deteriorate further.

See Also:
Australian parliament "regrets" injustice to Aboriginal people
Behind the politics of "reconciliation"
[30 August 1999]
A damning report on Australian Aboriginal health and welfare
[14 August 1999]


The WSWS invites your comments.

Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

BRON(klik)

_______________

Aussie PM Apologizes for Aborigine Child Abductions
Posted Feb 13, 08 2:50 AM CST in World

(newser) – Australia's new prime minister made a formal apology to the Aborigines today for "stolen generations" of children the government had taken from their homes. Tens of thousands of Aboriginal children were placed in orphanages or foster homes in a century-long program of forced assimilation. Throngs watched on big screens in front of parliament as Kevin Rudd apologized for the practice and spoke of removing "a stain from the soul of Australia."

The crowds, waving Australian and Aboriginal flags, cheered the apology. But many booed and turned their backs during a later speech by the leader of the opposition party, whose members refused to apologize during their 11 years in power. Controversy lingers, but the overall mood was one of relief and optimism. "There's still racism to deal with, but, hopefully, from this day we'll go forward together," one man told the Sydney Morning Herald.
Source Sydney Morning Herald

BRON(klik!)

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Minister John Howard:

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.'

"culture??

Wat in Australië gebeurde ("This culture") is één van de grootste aaneenschakeling van misdaden tegen de menselijkheid. Two centuries of crimes!

[the_special_one]

Pakweg het monopoliseren van bepaalde markten (door middel van regelgeving) simpelweg omdat er ofwel een sterke drukkingsgroep aanwezig is (zoals bv. de europese landbouwlobby) of omdat ze van "vitaal" belang zijn voor de overheid om alles te controleren. (bv. de post)

[moser]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the_special_one

Pakweg het monopoliseren van bepaalde markten (door middel van regelgeving) simpelweg omdat er ofwel een sterke drukkingsgroep aanwezig is (zoals bv. de europese landbouwlobby) of omdat ze van "vitaal" belang zijn voor de overheid om alles te controleren. (bv. de post)

Dat heeft wel een reden. Je geeft ze namelijk zelf al(vitaal belang overheid). Begrijp me niet verkeerd , ik zeg niet dat er geen slechte wetten zijn. Ik zeg zelfs niet dat er geen onlogische wetten zijn. Maar je moet ze wel respecteren als ze er zijn. En hier gaat het vooral over wetten die met integratie te maken hebben. Je kunt niet iemand gaan opleggen om bvb bepaalde kledij te dragen , als jezelf het recht hebt om je te kleden hoe je wil.

Concreet: Als een persoon A mag kiezen om op straat een groene jeans te dragen , dan mag persoon B kiezen om een paarse jellaba te dragen.

De wet zegt dat je op straat geen verhullende kledij mag dragen omdat je dan onherkenbaar bent , zodus zowel A en B , mogen bvb geen bivakmuts, boerka of skimask op straat dragen.

Als iemand dus problemen heeft met iemand anders die op straat rondloopt in een jellaba , dan moet ie dus volgens de theorie van Howard OOK oprotten.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door the_special_one

Pakweg het monopoliseren van bepaalde markten (door middel van regelgeving) simpelweg omdat er ofwel een sterke drukkingsgroep aanwezig is (zoals bv. de europese landbouwlobby) of omdat ze van "vitaal" belang zijn voor de overheid om alles te controleren. (bv. de post)

Mijn post gaat over GENOCIDE, niet over monopolievorming.

[the_special_one]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door moser

Dat heeft wel een reden. Je geeft ze namelijk zelf al(vitaal belang overheid). Begrijp me niet verkeerd , ik zeg niet dat er geen slechte wetten zijn. Ik zeg zelfs niet dat er geen onlogische wetten zijn. Maar je moet ze wel respecteren als ze er zijn. En hier gaat het vooral over wetten die met integratie te maken hebben. Je kunt niet iemand gaan opleggen om bvb bepaalde kledij te dragen , als jezelf het recht hebt om je te kleden hoe je wil.

Concreet: Als een persoon A mag kiezen om op straat een groene jeans te dragen , dan mag persoon B kiezen om een paarse jellaba te dragen.

De wet zegt dat je geen verhullende kledij mag dragen omdat je dan onherkenbaar bent , zodus zowel A en B , mogen bvb geen bivakmuts dragen.

Als iemand dus problemen heeft met iemand anders die op straat rondloopt in een jellaba , dan moet ie dus volgens de theorie van Howard OOK oprotten.

Het staat tussen aanhalingstekens voor iets
Vitaal belang voor de overheid staat linea recta tegenover belang van, wel zowat al de rest.
En begrijp me niet verkeerd, ik onderschrijf geenzins wat Howard zegt, integendeel zelfs. (al vind ik zeker wel dat als je een bivakmuts wil dragen je maar doet)