The report of both the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and
the ATSIC Social Justice Commissioner's report on compliance (or, rather,
mostly non-compliance) with the royal commission's recommendations from 1988
to 1996 can be found online here:
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/deaths_in_custody/index.html
Some of the links at that site, however, don't seem to be working at at
moment. This might be more promising:
http://www.omen.net.au/~dicwc/rciadic.html
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of tdunlop
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 2:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Australia not breaching international treaties
- PM
Karen wrote:
>I will not apologise for my thoughts because as it is obvious, everyone has
>different opinions and different encounters. You know nothing about me.
You don't have to apologise for your thoughts, Karen, you just have to
substantiate them. As you say, people have different opinions about things
but that just means that some people are right and some are wrong - Hitler
thought it was okay to kill Jews, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to his
opinion, let alone that his opinion was right.
We can all say what we like, but if you want freedom of speech to mean
something, then there has to be more to it than people just stating 'their
opinions'. The fact that something is your opinion doesn't mean it's an
argument. In your opinion, you say, no-one has proven to you that race is
an issue in mandatory sentencing, but all you've given us is assertion and
bluster - it isn't a 'race issue' because you don't think it is. You admit
you haven't read the deaths in custody report (which highlighted race as an
issue) you just ask 'someone' to justify its conclusions to you. Again,
this is not an argument, it is just bluster. Why don't you, for starters,
read the report and then argue (not assert) against their conclusions. If
you haven't got a copy, I'm sure someone on the list can tell you where to
get one or might even provide you with one.
Nonetheless, good on you for putting your hand up in such a visible way.
That's the good thing about forums like this. Some of us just want to hear
a better case to support the 'opinion' you are putting forward.
BTW I'd also be curious and would appreciate to hear your answers to the
post I sent last week, a copy of which I include below.
Thanks
Tim
=============================
Previous post
Karen,
There were a number of things in your post that would probably be worth
following up, but maybe you could just explain one for the time being. I
refer to this comment and your response to it:
>
>GC-"...police are more ready to judge Indigenous guilty than non-Indigenous
>ones."
>
>KAREN: As far as I'm concerned, police have a tough enough job as it is.
>Everything they do is scrutinised, which is fine to keep them in line, but
>give them a break. They do not MAKE the laws, they enforce them. If you
were >out there everyday on the beat, facing people who would, and could,
happily >spit on you, attack you, punch you, kick you, stab you, shoot you
etc you >too after a while would become more wary of people. As cops, you
never walk >into a situation all light and fairy so you have to be on the
ball, ready to >apprehend someone. There may well have been incidents where
police have been >more 'picky' but if they are going to arrest you, they
have to have a damn >good reason and a show cause. These days, they have to
judge people a bit >more harshly - it comes with the territory they work. If
they don't, they or >someone else, could be seriously hurt.
>
Can I just point out, you don't actually respond to the claim that the
police judge Aboriginal youth more often as guilty - you just change the
subject. The fact that the police have a tough job is not answer to the
claim that they racist. So are you denying they are racist or are you
saying that there job is so difficult that if occasionally they are racist
then, in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter? It was unclear
from your comment which conclusion you were drawing.
The fact that they only enforce laws is also no answer. In a sense this
goes to the heart of whether racism is an issue or not - the point your
original post made was that it wasn't. Let's just concede that the law
itself is not racist for sake of argument. Would you agree that it could
nonetheless be enforced in a racist way? Do you concede it as a
possibility? The point is, such a law, in the hands of enforcers (the
police, as you point out) who have a bias against a particular group of
people becomes a possible method for victimising that group. Would you
agree with that? Then the question becomes, do we know that the police are
racist? Well, the fact that Aboriginal people are 16 times more likely to
end up in jail suggests one of two things - either the law is being
disriminately applied to Aboriginal people, or Aboriginal people are for
some reason 16 times more likely to be criminals than non-Aboriginal people.
If you reject racism as an issue then you have only the second option left.
If that is the case, then onus is back on you to suggest as to why it is
believe Aboriginal people are substantially more criminal than other people.
Is that what you are saying? What are your reasons?
Anyway, if you have a chance to respond to this I hope you can address the
specific questions as directly and honestly as possible. Thanks
Tim
-------------------------------------------------------
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/
