It must be a slow news day.

Slaughterhouse creek massacre of 1838 by servants of the Queen against people subject to protection by the Queen:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Mounted_police_and_blacks.jp...

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 5:09pm:


Self defence, trespass, resources theft and property theft.

English settlers have killed more Australians than Muslims ever will.

Now the closet pom progeny of brutal, genocidal settlers are howling to deport Muslims.

svengali/laugh till you cry/unforgiven

English settlers have killed more Australians than Muslims ever will.

Now the closet pom progeny of brutal, genocidal settlers are howling to deport Muslims.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 12:36pm:

And yet theres about double the amount of Abos now that there was before European settlement. Didnt do a very good job,.

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2016/1/26/...

So they still have it as bad as they did over 200 yrs ago?

You should ask yourself why you attract people that makes threats to kill you?

Is it because you thrive on all the negative attention or

simply because you have a variant of their mental malaise?

Because it was self-defence against Pommies who were committing genocide, murder, trespass, resources theft and property theft.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2016 at 6:03pm:


Those aborigines are racist against the Poms. A transient culture getting all possessive over land that they neither owned or have the right to tell others to ping off. And you should be more wary of who was murdering who. The settlers were too weak to fight back against numerous aborigines who came in to steal settler food. That is the reason why settlers went on reprisal attacks against aborigines.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2016 at 1:33pm:


Unforgiven, did you factor DEATHS from old age into the equation? Because no society goes from 500,000 to 85 million in a period of 228 years... anywhere.

Even China and India had huge populations before their death rates came down to help boost their populations to over a billion each. I can't imagine a place like Germany having as little as 500,000 people in 1750. 15 million tops.

And you think the aborigines could have populated Australia with 80 million people without modern technology and medicine?

They can present as many cases as they want, the historical record shows there was no attempt at genocide but just the opposite.

If you judge the Poms on the standards of those times is does not look as bad as looking at it from todays standards.

The Poms were not exactly warm and caring for their own in that stretch of history

Things would have been a lot worse under the Spanish or the Japanese.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:45pm:


As an Aboriginal myself I object to all you white wankers taking offence on my behalf. Your pathetic bleating about the evils of the white man and encouragement of a victim mentality has done far more harm to my people than the British settlers have ever done.   All you do is make yourselves feel good with your holier than thou finger pointing and you achieve nothing except encourage the divisions between all Australians.

So either shut up or, as you must feel bad about benefiting from the exploitation you so abhor, piss off back to wherever your ancestors came from and leave us alone. 

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:45pm:


As an Aboriginal myself I object to all you white wankers taking offence on my behalf. Your pathetic bleating about the evils of the white man and encouragement of a victim mentality has done far more harm to my people than the British settlers have ever done.   All you do is make yourselves feel good with your holier than thou finger pointing and you achieve nothing except encourage the divisions between all Australians.

So either shut up or, as you must feel bad about benefiting from the exploitation you so abhor, piss off back to wherever your ancestors came from and leave us alone. 

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:
Ive proven this many times before. Do your research instead of concentrating on personal blogs. The truth is out there.

The Report notes that by 1940, the previous practice of removing children for 'absorption' had become the official policy of 'assimilation', which continued into the 1970s and still influences some official practices (p 266). The Report also notes that Australia was a member of the United Nations when the General Assembly declared genocide to be a crime against humanity in 1946, and that Australia is also a party to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ('the Genocide Convention'). The report boldly asserts that the 'Australian practice of Indigenous child removal involved ... genocide as defined by international law' (p 266).

The Report carefully analyses the Genocide Convention, drawing on the travaux preparatoires to the treaty, as well as the writings of the Polish jurist Lemkin who first coined the term 'genocide' and defined it to include the deliberate separation of families for depopulation purposes. Indeed, the Report notes that the forcible transfer of children is explicitly defined by the Convention to be 'genocide' (Article II). The Report accurately delineates the elements of the crime of genocide, and carefully assesses whether those elements have been satisfied. It focuses on the most controversial aspect of the crime: the issue of intent. Under the Convention, an act amounts to genocide only if it is 'committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such' (Article I1).

It is fortunate that the Report does focus on the issue of 'intent' as that has indeed become the central point of controversy. Much of the backlash against this finding has been based on a notion that, whatever we may now think, removal of Indigenous children was done in their best interests and there was no intent to destroy any group, even if this may have been the unfortunate effect. This commonly held view was reflected in the final report of the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. It has also, unfortunately, recently been reinforced by the High Court's decision in Kruger, Bray v Commonwealth (see casenote from page 26 of this issue). In that case, the constitutional validity of the Northern Territory Ordinance under which indigenous children were removed was attacked on a number of grounds. One of those grounds was the existence of an implied constitutional immunity from any law authorising acts of genocide. The Court decided that, even if there was such an implied immunity, the Ordinance did not contravene it. The members of the Court were of the view that there was nothing in the Ordinance, even if the acts authorised by it otherwise fell within the definition of genocide, which authorised acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any Aboriginal group. On the contrary, the powers conferred by the Ordinance were required to be exercised in the best interests of the Aborigines concerned or of the Aboriginal population generally. Removal did not, therefore, amount to genocide.

Yet these views ascribing a 'best interests' intent behind the removal of Indigenous children are far too simplistic. They do not accord with the reality of our history, nor do they accord with the interpretation which is given to the question of 'intent' under the international law of genocide. It is unfortunate that the High Court in Kruger did not follow the HREOC's lead in conducting the necessary research and engaging in. the rigorous analysis which is so evident when reading Bringing them home.

As the Report amply demonstrates, ascribing a 'best interests' intent does not accord with our history. There is plenty of evidence to show that 'a key objective of the forcible removal of Indigenous children was to remove them from the influence of their parents and communities, to acculturate them and to socialise them into Anglo-Australian values and aspirations' (p 273). The Report cites contemporary statements to show that the policy of removal was linked to the destruction of Aboriginal culture and indigenous people as a group. This is not to say that 'welfare' was not also a motive, as the Report recognises (pp 273-4). In fact, the destruction of the culture was seen by some as being in the best interests of the children (p 273).

This evidence of 'mixed motives' behind the policy of removal brings us to the question of how 'intent' is interpreted under the Genocide Convention. Although the question is not free from doubt, a review of the major published works on genocide confirm the conclusion of the Report, that a policy motivated out of a desire to destroy a culture, even coupled with a misguided belief that this was in the best interests of the people concerned, would satisfy the requirement of intent to commit genocide. For example, Lippmann concludes (based upon a review of the debates at the time of drafting the Genocide Convention) that an act or policy is still genocide even if the policy is motivated by a number of objectives (see 'The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide: Forty-Five Years Later' by M Lippmann in Vol. 8, Temple International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 1994, page 1). The intent to commit genocide can be established even if the motivation is not simply animosity or hate. Thus, the presence of 'mixed motives' does not prevent an act from being genocide.

rhino wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:


The colonial view was that the Indigenous "race" was dying out.  The introduction of colonial "blood" was going to reinvigorate them, with the result that there would be increased numbers of Indigenous stock.  Something which the Protector of Aborigines, O.A.Neville complained about.

If you examine the definition of what constitutes "Genocide" according to the UN:

Quote:

[Source]

Note the highlighted section.   What was the intention of the Stolen Generations Policies?  To forcibly transfer children from one group to another.   

... I'm wondering how low does Unforgiven have to keep pushing Britain down before he's satisfied... .

I doubt that it has climbed relative to other EU countries.

English settlers have killed more Australians than Muslims ever will.

Now the closet pom progeny of brutal, genocidal settlers are howling to deport Muslims.

I'm aware that this can sound like a piss - take, but its true, to an extent. A relative did a family history search a few years back and it seems that one of my great great grandmothers was Aboriginal.   At the time this caused some amusement as I used to tell some of my more in denial rellies that I was on my way to centrelink to collect my 'sit down money'. 

Belgarion wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 11:19am:


British Aboriginal is more likely.

Belgarion is British and an Anglophile to its bootstraps.

Belgarion hates Australian Aboriginals and has done nothing for them.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


Whatever you think he is, he's not a total wanker like you.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

Retired Sydney Swans star Adam Goodes ties the knot with long-time partner Natalie Croker in a secret ceremony
AFL star Adam Goodes and Natalie Croker got married in secret ceremony
Wedding was held last weekend on south coast of NSW among 20 guests
The pair have been together for over two years and live in North Bondi 

Retired AFL legend Adam Goodes has married his long-time partner Natalie Croker in a private ceremony.
The couple tied the knot on the south coast of New South Wales among a small party of 20 guests last weekend, The Daily Telegraph reported.
A 'wedding party' with over 200 invitees is being planned, according to Confidential.
Scroll down for video
Retired AFL legend Adam Goodes (right) has married his long-time partner Natalie Croker (left) in a private ceremony
+5
Retired AFL legend Adam Goodes (right) has married his long-time partner Natalie Croker (left) in a private ceremony
Natalie Croker (pictured) married Adam Goodes in a secret wedding ceremony over the weekend
+5
Natalie Croker (pictured) married Adam Goodes in a secret wedding ceremony over the weekend
A 'wedding party' with over 200 invitees is being planned for Goodes (pictured) and Croker
+5
A 'wedding party' with over 200 invitees is being planned for Goodes (pictured) and Croker
The big party is being held so Goodes can celebrate with his Sydney Swans teammates, among family and friends.
The pair, who like to keep their private life out of the spotlight, have been together for more than two years.
They became engaged in April this year, when Goodes proposed over the Easter long weekend.

Goodes and Croker live together in North Bondi, in Sydney's eastern suburbs.

Goodes played 372 games for the Sydney Swans Football club between 1999 and 2015.
He was named Australian of the year in 2014 for his work with the Go Foundation and advocacy against racism.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 12:39pm:

...just spit, kick up some dust...

... lets not forget Adam ...

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


Neither have I, & probably never knowingly will, but it doesn't mean I hate them.

Far from it.  Dislike maybe, in varying degrees, but hate.....no.

I just find the bulk of their self-pity parties nauseatingly predictable.....oh, & lets not forget Adam 'the Ape Man' Goodes.....a pillar of society.....where's he been at.....out walkabout, coward punching lil girls, or shacked up somewhere on crystal meth? 

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 2:44pm:
Let me guess, this is your view. The government took these kids away because they wanted to make them white??

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 2:47pm:


Yes, that was the ultimate objective of the Stolen Generations Policies.   You obviously dispute it.   What a shame you're so wilfully ignorant.   

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 2:50pm:
Nothing to do with the fact that mixed blood babies were getting banged over the head with a rock. Or not being looked after properly.

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 2:53pm:


Poms and closet poms call that 'hard love' when they do it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:


Why were poms and closet poms raping Aboriginal women in order to produce half-caste children if this was not part of the British genocide policy?

Nothing to do with the fact that mixed blood babies were getting banged over the head with a rock. Or not being looked after properly.

It was more than just fear. It was fact. Half caste children were being murdered. It's well documented.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:


Source?

Genocide, as a term, did not exist before 1944.

Lets just call it extermination to appease Lionel Edriess.

If we are to pro actively pursue those accused of genocide, as the term is described under the guidelines issued by the UN, in ages past, where will it end?

Will we perhaps seek compensation from the descendants of the Roman Empire?

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 2:53pm:


There is no independent evidence to support that any lasting harm occurred to indigenous children from their Indigenous families.   There is the usual self-justifying, racist and bigoted claims only.

If the concern was benevolence, why were full-blood children, living in exactly the same circumstances were ignored by the authority who acted purely upon the racist and bigoted belief that the colour of one's skin was of importance in determining whether a child was "half-caste" or not.   The Indigenous children who were stolen by the Government were just as loved and just as well cared for, yet the authorities belief in white supremacy meant that they had to be removed.   

[
If the intention was "benevolent" why was it written in the terms of Genocide?  Mmm?   

Forcible removal of children from one group to another is Genocide.   QED.