Swampfox wrote:
>
> If you can't do better than cheap shots and schoolyard
> insults you can blow it out your arse.
> You're a waste of space.
I have done a lot better than that. I have presented a lot of evidence
and you haven't been able to deal with one bit of it - not one bit.
That is on record for anyone to see. As for your indignation regarding
insults, how about comments like your Holocaust denial one? Or how
about you talking about my education? Or how about, "An apology from
you would be meaningless in any case"? I suggest that you stop crying
and in future take on someone less capable of caustic reciprocation.
Anyway, thank for another opportunity to present the evidence that you
ignore and even imply as being absent:
SQ:
===========================================================
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/hreoc/stolen/stolen08.html
Yes, I know that these are the wide "Stolen" claims. What I asked for
was specific cases. 'Sorry'-friendly Labor has been in government in
every state. By now they should have accumulated hundreds, if not
thousands of individual cases. I only asked for 10. When O'Donoghue, a
patron of the 'Stolen Generation', talks of one billion dollars in
compensation, how is it to be issued? One presumes she is talking
about 'victims' like herself, because she too claimed to be of the
stolen generation. But it turns out that she wasn't stolen at all. Her
mother had shot through and her white father took he to a mission and
left her there. Should she be issued a 'Stolen Generation' apology and
be compensated? If not her, then whom? How about the now deceased
Charles Perkins, another "Stolen Generation" campaigner? Should he
have received and apology and received compensation? It turns out that
his mother put in in a hostel to receive a better education and that
afterwards, he was grateful. Should he have received an apology and
compensation? If not he, then whom? How about we move onto the
Northern Territory and say sorry to and compensate all the 'Stolen'
claimants there?
http://www.ipe.net.au/Howson1.html
~ Other evidence led during the cases also provides a totally
~ different perspective. For example, evidence that was
~ unchallenged by the claimants shows that, during 1946-62 in
~ the territory, half-caste children numbered between 500 and
~ 1000. Only 129 such children were placed in hostels by the
~ Government and all except three were placed with the
~ mother's consent. Such consent was obtained from discussions
~ that typically extended over 18 months to 2 years.
Now remember, this is not some wild claim that I am making; these are
the findings of the court. So there, only 129 out of the supposed
1,000 (up to) were placed in hostels. That's a 'Generation'? Out of
that 129 only 3 were found to have been forcibly removed. Is that
hundreds "Stolen"? Would you like to suggest that all these parents
would have been so caring for their children, that not even 3
children would be too unlikely to have been found to be badly
neglected? It is hardly any wonder that DOCS is too scared to
remove children whose very lives are in danger.
So Swamppox, should the hundreds of claimants in the Northern
Territory receive an apology and compensation for the 'Stolen
Generation'? If not they, then whom? Would you suggest that any who
ask, should be compensated, or would you prefer it to go to the
genuine victims? But if, for instance, we are talking about Northern
Territory, out of the possible 1,000 claimants all but 3 would not be
genuine. Only three were forcibly removed, and why should one assume
that that wasn't without good reason?
How about we go to NSW? There has been one case here but it was a
_test_ case. Presumably the 'Stolen Generation' people would have
sought to have present one of their most solid examples:
~ The evidence does not support either proposition. The judge
~ in a New South Wales compensation test case found that
~ the claimant was not "stolen" and concluded that "At all
~ points, the whole of the evidence seems to be against the
~ plaintiff's claim." Judgement in the cases against the
~ Commonwealth is pending but, on the evidence, a similar
~ conclusion seems warranted.
~ The conflict between Sir Ronald's report and evidence in
~ these latter cases arises because he did not check the
~ veracity of stories told to him. Nor, astonishingly, did
~ he call evidence from officers involved in administering
~ Aboriginal welfare.
You accused me of choosing selectively but the only ones I chose
were two prominent representatives of the 'Stolen Generation'
and the court case that won for your mindset. Though you obviously
didn't like this case (curious!), let me remind you of it - the
only winning case:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22941626-2,00.html
~ Mr Trevorrow [the 'Stolen'] had been admitted to hospital
~ suffering stomach pains as a "neglected child without parents"
~ when he was 13 months old. The hospital's notes say he was
~ suffering from "malnutrition" and "infective diarrhoea".
~ They add: "The other two children are neglected. Mother has
~ cleared out and father is boozing."
~ After two weeks treatment, he was fostered into the home of
~ Martha and Frank Davies, a white couple with two children
~ of their own.
~ Young Trevorrow spent nearly 10 years with the Davies family
~ but has little memory of those days. His foster sister Carole
~ Malinda, who was 15 when her parents brought the young
~ Aborigine home, remembers him as "one of the family".
~ She has said: "He was just our brother. We were told that he
~ had been abandoned, which was a lie but we didn't know that,
~ of course. He was just a person who needed a home."
~ Then the state changed its policy on removed children, and
~ he began to visit his natural mother Thora Lampard (she
~ had remarried), finally returning to her for good.
~ His adoptive family found his departure wrenching. "We
~ weren't told he was going away, so it was quite traumatic,"
~ Ms Malinda has said.
~ "My mother cried her eyes out. She had lost her son and we
~ didn't know why. He wasn't allowed to take any of his
~ things ... He actually tried to walk home, back to us."
~ In fact, Mr Trevorrow found he no longer fitted into his
~ natural family (his mother bashed him) and soon he went
~ into institutional care.
So seeing as you didn't like that case, perhaps you would prefer the
losing cases listed:
http://bussorah.tripod.com/boltstol.html
NT:
~ the court said it hadn't found anyone who'd been stolen in the
~ NT, and the "evidence does not support a finding that there
~ was any policy of removal of part-Aboriginal children such as
~ that alleged by the applicants".
NSW:
~ Then to New South Wales. Only one "stolen generations" child
~ has gone to court there -- activist Joy Williams. But her
~ case, too, failed, after the court found she'd been willingly
~ given up by her deeply troubled mother. In fact, it's odd
~ that no high-profile example of a "stolen" child has ever
~ been proved genuine.
WA:
~ On to Western Australia, where a royal commission in 1936 had
~ already heard from the Protector of Aborigines that children
~ weren't taken unless they were in danger. Manne has claimed this
~ protector, A.O. Neville, had "genocidal thoughts", but last year
~ finally conceded "it didn't affect the outcomes for the children".
~ I know, the film Rabbit-Proof Fence, set in WA, insists that it
~ tells the "true story" of three girls being stolen but, as I've
~ revealed, the records of that incident show this true story is
~ false.
Vic:
~ It was the same story in Victoria when the Bracks Government's
~ Stolen Generations Taskforce last year admitted it couldn't
~ find any real "stolen" children, either, adding there had been
~ "no formal policy for removing children" from Aboriginal parents
~ here.
In any case, Swapsox, if you don't like the examples/cases I have
presented, you and the rest of the 'Sorry' lobby here have been
invited to present better examples/cases. If the dearth so far is
due to my incompetence, and you can educate by showing several
genuine recorded cases, then why don't you? Why not start with the
Northern Territory and show why we should apologise to, and
compensate the thousand claimants there for their being 'stolen'?
And with the other states, you might like to ask yourself why,
with all the tens of thousands of genuine cases supposedly
available, only duds have gone to trial. You might also like to
ask why there aren't more trials? Could it be that the so-called
stolen will stand a better chance when Rudd apologises,
effectively pleading guilty on the defendants' (our) behalf?
=======================================================
EQ:
Sean McHugh |