Don't dare put me in the same class as John Howard because "I did not vote
for him". For starters, I think he is a fool but in this circumstance I
believe he is correct. Because that is my opinion and I have my own logic,
which by the looks of your reply, you also have your own. Remember freedom
of speech??
When I say correct I mean he is correct in that mandatory sentencing was not
the main reason for this teen killing himself in the detention centre.
People are protesting that he died in the detention centre and shouldn't
have been there.
They say he shouldn't have been there because he was Aboriginal (and
according to the Royal Commission, race is an issue in these deaths!) and
only stole soem stationary.
So are they saying that Aboriginals who commit any crimes should not be put
in jail at all because they will kill themselves??????? Isn't that racist?
If they are so concerned that a young man killed himself while in prison,
and only that he killed himself and that is against human rights, then there
should be no mention of 'Aboriginal boy', 'racist laws', 'unfair mandatory
sentencing'. It should all just be about changing the law to protect
everyone.
It is the people protesting who are turning a tragic incident into a race
issue. I've never seen anyone react so angrily over a few white people or
Vietnamese people who kill themselves in jail. But the minute a young
Aboriginal boy does, everybody jumps up saying that he shouldn't have been
there and that it was wrong.
Nobody remembers that this young man had stolen goods and was only in there
for 28 days. He was not facing a life sentence. It is supposed to teach them
some discipline and understanding of the laws we have in society to prevent
people from becoming repeat offenders.
His next stop would have been jail if he had not been punished for his
crimes. Not everyoen who goes to a detention centre kills themselves. Jail
is there for a reason no matter what culture you come from.
There seems to be one law for Aboriginals and one law for everybody else.
Why is it that we can't all live togteher under the same laws? Laws are not
be about who is black or white but about what is right and wrong!
I would like to know exactly how the Royal Commission found that race was
such an issue in these deaths.
It seems to me that some Aboriginal people just look for an excuse to turn
everything into a race issue. And for someone who was brought up to respect
people for who they were and not to discriminate - I find it disgusting. No
one race is better than another and we should all be trying to work together
and stop blaming. Everybody wants to blame. Noone seems to stand up and say,
"hey I'm great because instead of blaming you for my problems, I'm looking
after myself". We do it as individuals, so why not as a nation????
Responsibility is equal to reconciliation.
Never in my life have I personally judged anybody for the way they look,
their colour etc. I like people for who they are not what they are. I am not
a racist - never have been and never will be - I just hate it when people
try to shaft responsibility for their own actions. One man I would loved to
have met was Martin Luther King. I've read books about him and think he was
an amazing man. I felt for him and the people who suffered with segregation
etc. Nobody should suffer like that.
But in this day and age, we have come a long way and people are finally
being allowed to live together without being punished for their colour or
culture. However, I think now some people take their causes just a little
too far. In this day and age when there are people of all races suffering
(ie. poverty, homelessness etc), we cannot just pin point one and say "We
must feel sorry for them". We must help everybody and this cannot be
achieved when one group regularly turns a social issue into a race issue and
says "everyone else is at fault, not us".
It's not right.
We know how everyone has suffered over the last decades. As Cathy Freeman
said herself in an article she wrote for the Courier-Mail - Aboriginal
people are not the only race to have suffered atrocities. Now it is time to
move on and work together.
I don't agree with what happened many years ago to Aboriginal people either,
but at the age now of just 25 years old, I acknowledge that that is in the
past. We don't have to forget, but we can move on to improve things. Most
people also want to move on, we can't keep dwelling on the past. It will get
us nowhere.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Ellis
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 12:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [recoznet2] Australia not breaching international treaties
- PM
I think Karen has fallen for Mr Howard's false logic.
In one sentence he's quoted as saying mandatory sentencing is not to blame;
people who say that, he implies, are wrong. That is his conclusion.
In the next sentence he provides his reasoning: it's not credible that
mandatory sentencing 'was the only cause'. But who ever claimed it was the
_only_ cause? No one, of course; no one would be so silly.
But see his slippery logic here! Because anyone who said it was the _only_
cause would be plainly wrong, his conclusion is that it can't be blamed.
Meaning: can't be blamed _at all_. He invents a class of people who, he
asserts, say something stupid, and then behaves as if that somehow justified
his conclusion.
In fact Karen isn't just falling for his 'straw man' argument. She's
indulging in some shonky logic herself.
She says Howard 'is for once correct' (meaning, naturally, that she agrees
with him), so, she concludes, 'people who are making this a race issue' are
wrong.
What does she mean he's correct about? That mandatory sentencing wasn't the
_sole_ cause of the young man's suicide? OK, let's say he is right about
that. But what's that got to do with her conclusion that race is not an
issue here?
Or does she mean he's right to say mandatory sentencing isn't to blame
(meaning: isn't to blame at all). She might think so, but, even if she was
right, it wouldn't follow that race isn't to blame (meaning: isn't to blame
at all). That is simply her opinion presented as if it followed logically
from something that was 'correct'.
I could go on. For example, about the argument that because people of other
races 'commit suicide while in detention centres and jails', therefore this
particular tragedy must be 'a mental health issue'. Or about finding out
'what really bothered him enough for him to kill himself', when we had a
Royal Commission into this very question and it concluded that race was
indeed an issue in such deaths.
Come on, Karen. Believe what it suits you to believe, but don't try to kid
us that you have a logical basis for it. You're putting yourself in the same
class as 'Honest John' himself.
Jack Ellis
Seattle, WA
USA
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karen Crook
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2000 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [recoznet2] Australia not breaching international treaties
- PM
> However, he said it was wrong to blame mandatory sentencing for
> the boy's death.
> 'I don't think that it can be credibly argued that that
> (mandatory sentencing) was the only cause of that very
> very tragic incident,' Mr Howard said.
Mr Howard for once is correct - so why is everyone making this a race issue?
Why don't people look into his family and friends and find out what really
bothered him enough for him to kill himself?? And what about all the other
races which commit suicide while in detention centres and jails? People care
about them too but it's not a race issue, it is a mental health issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Young
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 4:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Australia not breaching international treaties
- PM
Well, he will be proved right or wrong after Mary Robinson has had a look,
but I couldn't say much for his logic. This could end up being a very
embarrassing press comment, and in this context embarrassing = damaging.
I had assumed that Kofi Annan kept quiet because he understood that his
comments could actually inflame the situation and that the government would
be more likely to do the right thing if he held his peace and allowed
pressure to occur at more subterranean levels.
Howard's comments later in the interview seem to indicate that no strategy
is going to change his mind.
Graham Y
-------------------------------------------------------
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%40paradigm4.com.au/
-------------------------------------------------------
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%40paradigm4.com.au/
