And could you tell me [so Ive got it completely clear in my mind] what is so bad about "COMPENSATION"??? a really bad thing appraently. [[dare to have more imagination than to cite your hard earned taxes puhleasse.!!!]] Our taxes are spent on many trivial usless things i would have thought. Id much rather give Ind pple compensation than contribute to the Tsunami fund for Indonesia for example or East Timor etc.


The "Sorry " speech was well executed I thought.

Great that he touched upon the fact that the Government was trying to breed out Ind pple [characteristics]- a topic not generally dared to be spoken out loud. "------------------


Oh DT- you forgot to address this bit of my post, esp the highlighted bit.

Quote:


I didn't forget to address it - I deliberately didn't because you said I was unimaginative and I was waiting for you to explain how Dear Leader Comrade Kevvy Il-Rudd will "right the wrongs of the past" without some financial compensation.  How will he do that oceans?  Please explain to an unimaginative one.

And if you want to know what happens when you compensate people for being victims you only need look to the communities now.  Since Whitlam kicked the missions off the properties and created bodies like the DAA (followed by Hawke's disastrous ATSIC) the communities have decayed into what we see today.  Throwing money at a disenfranchised people has not worked to date.  Why do you think more money will?  So far a billion dollars a year has seen no benefits.  What will change if it is Kevvy's pocket money?

freediver wrote on Feb 13^th, 2008 at 9:27pm:


Actually you will find it is those concerned about compensation (such as me) who are opposed to continuing the treatment - Comrade Kevvy Il-Rudd's gesture today has set Aboriginal relations back 20 years to the time of the disaster of Whitlam - compensation will endorse the divisiveness created by Gough and fostered by Hawke.

I oppose the destruction that has been wrought on the communities by feel good attitudes such as this which have no backbone or belief behind them - they sit back in the Lodge, stare at the silent dishwasher and say they have done good stuff.   While another child is raped and they don't believe it can happen because they gave them all a million bucks.

It is your belief that money fixes stuff that ensures stuff remains broken.   Why don't you care for Aboriginal folk?  Your statement indicates it is more about motherhood statements, warmth and fuzziness and a settling back with a latte and a self satisfied smugness that everything has been put right in the world.

It is nothing about the awful reality which John Howard has done a great deal to address with the mutual obligation agreements which ensure children go to school and basic hygiene is observed.

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 13^th, 2008 at 9:15pm:


Do the world a favour and get a job mel.

deepthought wrote on Feb 13^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


I have to agree with deepthought here. I'm not cynical towards the apology myself, but I think it will in fact create more division (especially judging by all the comments I've read on the Net). I hark back light-heartedly to an old film, "Love means never having to say you're sorry". Well early governments stuffed up, for sure, and I think some directly affected do deserve compensation, but I think most Australians are more concerned about current conditions, and what Aboriginal people are presently doing on their part to improve their living conditions. Throwing too much money at people, any people, is a recipe for their own self-destruction. No one appreciates fully what they don't work for, and we've seen this time and again. And what are Aborigines themselves doing about rapes and child abuse in their own communities. Discrimination is another matter. Maybe saying "sorry" might break down some discrimination barriers? Discrimination in employment can be a problem, and the remaining stigma attached to "Abos" is not a good one.

I think what many Australians object to is the fact that we all do it tough, and we all presently suffer from contemporary injustices (think of the Family Court for example) of some kind. Have the "stolen children" from England been told "sorry", many of them physically and sexually abused under government policy. I realise this is different than an invasion of one's land, and no one can compare this to Aboriginal massacres.  My question on a practical level is: Will saying sorry, generally, improve current problems?  So I too often wonder if this is just a way of feeling good, maudlin sentimentality. Will it really change anything on a significant level?  I can't say the apology stirred any real emotion in me, because I look at the practical side of things. The local paper asked "do you remember where you were and what you were doing when you heard the apology" (JFK assassination kind of thing). Well, for starters, we all knew it was coming, but this is the sort of maudlin sentemintality I'm speaking of. It may make us feel good, but actions always speak louder than words. If someone broke into my house and stole everything, I'd rather he return it than say sorry. Maybe both would be appropriate, but I'd rather real restoration than "sorry" anyday.

The full transcript of both speeches:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/sorry.html

from crikey:

Dave Liberts writes: Re. "Faris: Aboriginals must be compensated. Here's how" (yesterday, item 13). I'm no lawyer and Peter Faris is a QC, so obviously I could be wrong about this, but I really think he's flying a kite with his knock-up Statement of Claim. Although Faris does refer to the recent South Australian case of Bruce Trevorrow in suggesting that $500,000 is the likely value of compensation, he's conveniently ignored every other detail of the Trevorrow case. For example, Faris regards the apology as an admission of liability, yet the South Australian government's 1997 apology never came into the arguments put by Trevorrow's lawyers in that case. If apology was crucial to liability, one would have expected it to pop up. The United Nations charters or ramblings about duties and rights don't cop a mention in the judgement either. The key to any class action will not only be to prove that quantifiable harm was done, but to prove that the removal was unlawful at that time. Trevorrow managed to do this in respect of his case, but many others will struggle. Faris has also completely failed to explain why the Commonwealth of Australia should be a defendant when it was the states who administered the removal of these children (under state laws), and the Trevorrow case and the Tasmanian compensation arrangements further confirm that this is a problem for the States, not the Commonwealth.

Steve Martin writes: I don't really understand what David Flint is on about. Is he suggesting that justice can't be served because it may cost money? Surely not! Irrespective of what David Flint and Keith Windschuttle may think about opening the flood gates to compensation claims, there appears to be no evidence that this could happen without the consent of the courts due to the statute of limitations. Even if a claimant were to get permission to mount a claim, proving detriment would be near impossible, see for example the Lorna Cubillo attempt to get compensation. The only real hope for any of the "Stolen generations" would be through ex gratia payments, and at the moment the Federal Government has ruled this out.

Marilyn Shepherd writes: Re. "Sorry: Australia talks back" (yesterday, item 10). Reading the listener reaction to the apology to the stolen generations I have to wonder two things. Did they listen to the apology and why did they bother with such ugly closed minds. They make me sick to my stomach and should go back to the lands of their ancestors. To qualify that I will state that my own family led the massacre of a tribe of Aborigines as late as 1910 so they could steal the land and the ranters who are given a voice here should be sickened by their heartless cruelty. I have no idea why they seem to think that Aborigines are "given millions" when that is not the truth. Aborigines are supplied about 10% of the health care of other Australians and an Afghan child of recent refugees has a greater chance of surviving past 65 than an Aboriginal child born in their own country.

Tom Moloney writes: The House passed the motion and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition walked to the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery. Do I imagine that I saw the Prime Minister walk half a pace towards the Opposition side of the table on his return? Also. Mr Keating was not up to speed for the first minute or so of his appearance on ABC. I think the man had been weeping. Quite right too.

FD, I'll reply later, but I picked this up on the Net this morning (after nightshift, I'm on my way to bed):

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23216951-2,00.html