----- Original Message -----
From: TONY SPIERS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 11:07 AM
Subject: Fw: The "S" WORD, the "G" WORD, and introducing . . . the "A" WORD
THIS BOUNCED WHEN I SENT IT IN.
THERE WERE TWO ATTACHMENTS, ONE OF WHICH I HAVE NOW INCORPORATED WITHIN
THE TEXT. THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS A FACSIMILE OF A PRIVATE MEMBERS BILL
FROM 1966 FOR A CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION WHICH THE HOLT GOVT REFUSED TO
SUPPORT BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE OUTLAWED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BY HER
MAJESTY'S PARLIAMENTS. I HOPE IT TRANSFERS SUCCESSFULLY. IF ANYONE IS
INTERESTED IN SEEING IT IN THE ORIGINAL FORMAT, YOU WILL HAVE TO EMAIL ME
DIRECT, AND I WILL SEND IT AS AN ATTACHMENT BACK TO YOU.
THE OTHER ATTACHMENT IS A GRAPHIC WHICH INCLUDES A MAP OF THE INDIGENOUS
COUNTRIES ON THIS CONTINENT.
> > MAIN TEXT FOLLOWS NEWS ITEM HEREUNDER
> >
> > Source: AAP|Published: Sunday August 13, 4:40 PM
> >
> > "The stolen generation compensation court case decision has wiped out
> Prime
> > Minister John Howard's legal justification for not
> > apologising to Aborigines, Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said today. .
.
> .
> > Federal Court Justice Maurice O'Loughlin said he accepted much of the
> > evidence in the case, including Mrs Cubillo's evidence of being
> > viciously assaulted by a missionary and of being starved for affection
at
> > the Retta Dixon Home.
> >
> > Mr Beazley said the court case showed the way to handle the situation
was
> > not through litigation.
> >
> > "The way to handle this is firstly with a proper public apology and
> secondly
> > with an appropriate tribunal or mechanism, which people
> > can access without going through the trauma and the legal expense of the
> > legal processes where the money in the end ends up in the
> > pockets of the lawyers and not those who have been traumatised," he
said.
> >
> > Under a Labor government members of the stolen generation would be able
to
> > access the tribunal without excessive reliance on formal
> > legal processes.
> >
> > Mr Beazley said compensation would be involved but it would not amount
to
> > the billions of dollars identified by Treasury.
> >
> > "If you look at the budget numbers of the last two Treasury reports and
> you
> > come to the areas at which they identify risk, they have
> > identified risk of billions of dollars to the commonwealth from the
> > possibility of successful cases being bought here," he said.
> >
> > "That is not necessary at all.
> >
> > "What is necessary is a much more modest set of propositions where
people
> > can go and access them without going through the
> > extreme trauma of the processes that the two in Darwin have been put
> > through.
> >
> > "I mean, what we are talking about here is really a form of
> acknowledgement,
> > because that is actually what members of the stolen
> > generation want.
> >
> > "They want an acknowledgement and they want an apology and that doesn't
> cost
> > you billions of dollars."
> > -------------------------
> >
> > Well actually John Howard's "legal justification" that an apology would
> > increase the level of damages a court would likely award is simply, and
> has
> > NEVER BEEN, a justification at all. In fact, it's typical of the second
> > rate legal advice that has been spooned into blackfellers down through
the
> > decades.
> >
> > Any good torts lawyer will tell you that one of the first things a court
> > will be looking for when it is assessing damages in a civil action
(like,
> > say, defamation) is whether the victim demanded an apology, and, if so,
> > whether one was forthcoming. The failure/refusal to apologise will
almost
> > certainly then be grounds for an award of an even heavier damages, not
> less.
> > From the defendant's viewpoint, that could be said differently - an
> apology
> > will almost always mitigate damages, not the opposite. The courts seem
to
> > operate on the principle that every prison governor, every parole board,
> and
> > every parent of a small boy already knows, and that principle is this:
> >
> > If he lies to you, sticks his tongue out at you, and refuses to
> apologise,
> > then you can be damn sure the bastard will do it again. But on the
other
> > hand, if he does apologise, you just can't be sure he WON'T do it
again.
> > In this case here, an apology delivered by Howard, and certainly one
from
> > Beazley, whose support was essential to the passage of the Hindmarsh
> Island
> > Bridge Act, will feel like a mongrel dog sniffing my crotch.
> >
> > The bastard in this case is that pommy bastard, Her Majesty's
Commonwealth
> > Parliament, and in my view, the bastard definitely can't be trusted,
> > particularly when you consider its performance on race relations over
the
> > last decade in particular.
> >
> > The quest for an apology today has all the hallmarks of the campaign for
> the
> > 1967 Referendum - a huge amount of energy spent, and the only result to
be
> > achieved was then, and will be now, a lot of smoke and mirrors.
> >
> > The 1967 Referendum
> >
> > Many of you reading this will be affronted at such a dismissal of 1967,
> but
> > the main beneficiaries of that referendum were the pastoralists and
other
> > holders of white land title three decades later when first the Keating
> > government, and then Howard's, exercised that new Commonwealth power
three
> > times against Aborigines living in the States. Mainly to mitigate the
> threat
> > that "native title" posed to white landed property interests. The
> > legislation that did this is the Native Title Act 1993, and its
amendment
> in
> > 1998. The third Act was of course the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act in
> 1997.
> > If you are not aware until now that the 1993 NTA extinguished native
title
> > rights wholesale without the consent of its owners, then look down.
> >
> > You may find a mongrel dog has had its nose in your crotch too, but
since
> > 1993.
> >
> > In 1967, the Commonwealth Parliament perpetrated a fraud against the
> > Australian electors living in the States by failing to advise in its
"YES"
> > case, that the main reason for supporting the proposed change was to
avoid
> > an alternative proposal put forward by Bill Wentworth as a private
> member's
> > bill six months earlier. That private member's bill (See attachment)
> would
> > have outlawed future acts of racial discrimination by the High Court and
> ALL
> > parliaments, State and Commonwealth -- including relevant sections of
the
> > Native Title Acts, and most particularly and important of all, the very
> > first paragraph of the 1992 Mabo judgement which gave first Keating and
> then
> > Howard the green light. A conscious decision was taken in 1967 to not
> > support that private member's bill because, as Prime Minister Holt told
> the
> > House, an amendment eliminating racial discrimination would provide a
> >
> > "fertile source of attack on legislation which we, at this point in
time,
> do
> > not consider discriminatory"
> >
> > and have
> >
> > "disadvantages so substantial that the government does not believe it
> should
> > be pursued."
> >
> > ......disadvantages such as, for example, dismantling the apartheid,
> > particularly in Queensland and Western Australia.
> >
> > This decision was announced in the context of a second reading speech
> > introducing the referendum bill that was eventually put to the people on
> May
> > 27 1967. The successful amendment certainly did not provide the "fertile
> > source of attack" promised by Bill Wentworth's proposal - we had to wait
> > until 1975 for the RDA, and then cross our fingers it would not be
> > repealed - which is exactly what they did to it (indirectly and
partially)
> > in 1993, 1997 and 1998.
> > If you are not aware of all of this until now, then look down. You may
> find
> > a mongrel dog has been . . . . . .
HERE IS THE BILL:
1964-65-66
THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
_______________________
Presented and read a first time, 10th March, 1966
(Mr. Wentworth)
A BILL
FOR
AN ACT
To alter the Constitution so as to advance the interests of aboriginal
natives and to eliminate racial discrimination within the Commonwealth of
Australia
.
BE it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the
Senate and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of
AustraIia, with the approval of the electors, as required by the
Constitution, as follows:---
5 1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Alteration
Short title.
(Aborigines) 1966.
2. Section 51 of the Constitution is altered by omitting
paragraph (xxvi.) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph:---
10 "(xxvi.) The advancement of the aboriginal natives of the
Commonwealth of Australia.".
3. The Constitution is altered by inserting after section 117 the following
section:--
15 "117A. Neither the Commonwealth nor any State shall make or
maintain any law which subjects any person who has been born or naturalised
within the Commonwealth of Australia to any discrimination or disability
within the Commonwealth by reason of his racial origin:
Provided that this section shall not operate so as to preclude
the making of laws for the special. benefit of the aboriginal natives
of the Commonwealtli of Australia.".
-----------------------------------------
By Authority:. A. J ARTHUR, Commonwealth Government Printer, Canberra
970/10.3. 1966.-F.13836/6
> >
> > The "G" Word and The Stolen Generations Enquiry
> >
> > No one was more surprised than I was to see that the practice of
forcible
> > removal of children to be raised by the other group was formally
> recognised
> > as "genocide" in the "Stolen Generations" Report. There was one reason
> for my surprise
> >
> > That reason is Ronald Wilson.
> >
> > Wilson, as everybody knows, was on the High Court before being appointed
> to
> > the top job on the Human Rights Commission. Less well known is that
> Wilson
> > wrote the minority judgement in the first Mabo case.
> >
> > But first . . . may I now INTRODUCE THE "A" WORD . . .
> >
> > Mabo l and The Crime of Apartheid
> >
> > Shortly after Eddie Mabo started his case against Queensland, the
National
> > Party government of Mr Twenty Seven Per Cent (Jo Bjelke-Petersen) put a
> bill
> > through which became the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act, 1986.
> > This Act declared that if native title had NOT been extinguished on
> > annexation of the coast islands, then it was now declared to be so
> > extinguished -- retrospective to 1889 - with no compensation payable.
> > Queensland then amended its defence to rest on the new Act, and gave
Eddie
> > the middle finger. Eddie then had postpone his main action to counter
> > attack by seeking a declaration from the High Court that the "Queensland
> > Act" was made inoperative by the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act
> > (RDA). The court handed down its judgement (called Mabo 1) in 1989, and
> as
> > everybody must realise, Eddie won in 1989. What is even less well known
is
> > that Eddie only just squeaked home. Three of the seven judges declared
> that
> > this extraordinary legislative measure was not racially discriminatory!!
> > Wilson was one of them!!
> >
> > Now the Australian Parliament (Parliament itself, not merely the
Minister)
> > unanimously (i.e. includiing John Howard and Phil Ruddock!) ratified the
> > Race Discrimination Convention in 1975, without relevant reservations
> > against Article 3 :
> > "States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid
and
> > undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this
nature
> in
> > territories under their jurisdiction."
> >
> > Now the Queensland Act is very obviously caught by
> > "any measures, including LEGISLATIVE MEASURES, DESIGNED TO DIVIDE THE
> > POPULATION ALONG RACIAL LINES BY . . . THE EXPROPRIATION OF LANDED
> PROPERTY
> > BELONGING TO A RACIAL GROUP, or groups, or members thereof".
> >
> > These words are included in the definition of "the crime of apartheid"
> > adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1973 two good years before
Australia
> > ratified the Race Discrimination Convention.[Article 2, The
International
> > Convention to Suppress and Punish the Crime of Apartheid, GA, Res. 3068
> > (XXVIII), 28 UN GADIC, Supp. (No 30.) at 75, UN DOC. A/9030 (1973)].
> >
> > Here you are: Articles One, Two and Three in full:
> >
> > Article I
> > 1. The States Parties to the present Convention declare that apartheid
is
> a
> > crime against humanity and that inhuman acts resulting from the policies
> and
> > practices of apartheid and similar policies and practices of racial
> > segregation and discrimination, as defined in article II of the
> Convention,
> > are crimes violating the principles of international law, in particular
> the
> > purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and
> > constituting a serious threat to international peace and security.
> > 2. The States Parties to the present Convention declare criminal those
> > organizations, institutions and individuals committing the crime of
> > apartheid.
> > Article II
> > For the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of
> > apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial
> > segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall
> apply
> > to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing
> and
> > maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other
> racial
> > group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
> > (a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the
> right
> > to life and liberty of person:
> > (i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
> > (ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of
> > serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or
> > dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
> degrading
> > treatment or punishment;
> > (iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a
> > racial group or groups;
> > (b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living
conditions
> > calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in
part;
> > (c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a
> > racial group or groups from participation in the political, social,
> economic
> > and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of
conditions
> > preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular
> by
> > denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and
> > freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized
trade
> > unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to
their
> > country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement
and
> > residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right
> to
> > freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
> > (d) Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide
the
> > population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and
> > ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of
> > mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the
expropriation
> of
> > landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members
> thereof;
> > (e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or
groups,
> > in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
> > (f) Persecution of organizations and persons, by depriving them of
> > fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid.
> > Article III
> > International criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the
> > motive involved, to individuals, members of organizations and
institutions
> > and representatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of
the
> > State in which the acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever
> > they:
> > (a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in the
commission
> of
> > the acts mentioned in article II of the present Convention;
> > (b) Directly abet, encourage or co-operate in the commission of the
crime
> of
> > apartheid.
> >
> > The court made no finding that the Queensland Act is a crime, or that
Her
> > Majesty's Queensland Parliament is a criminal organisation. On the
> > contrary, Wilson J found that the Queensland Act is a law. A law,
> moreover,
> > for the "peace, welfare and good government" of Queensland. At par.11,
he
> > finds
> >
> > "for present purpose, it is enough to say that the power to legislate
for
> > the 'peace, welfare and good government' of Queensland is, subject to
the
> > Constitution of the Commonwealth, a plenary power, the exercise of which
> > lies within the discretion of the legislature itself".
> >
> > A PLENARY POWER TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY THAT NO DOMESTIC COURT
> CAN
> > OVERSIGHT ?
> >
> > A barbaric proposition indeed.
> >
> > Wilson goes on, referring the reader to "see the recent discussion in
> Union
> > Steamship Co. vs King, unreported, 6 October 1988", evidently relevant
to
> > his reasoning. In the discussion on the power in par. 16 of that
> judgement
> > (by a unanimous Full Bench), we find these words, relevant here:
> >
> > "Whether the exercise of that legislative power is subject to some
> > restraints by reference to rights deeply rooted in our democratic system
> of
> > government and the common law . IS ANOTHER QUESTION WE NEED NOT EXPLORE"
> > [emphasis added] .
> >
> > If the High Court need not explore whether the exercise of legislative
> power
> > by Parliaments in Australia against Her Majesty' subjects is not itself
> > subject to some restraints by reference to rights deeply buried in their
> > British system of government and the common law, it is also equally
clear
> > that it need not explore whether the exercise of that legislative power
is
> > subject to rights more recently recognised by the international law such
> as
> > freedom from apartheid -- or genocide, for that matter (noting that the
> two
> > definitions overlap).
> >
> > So - what would you do with such a barbarian?
> >
> > Well, he'd make a good blackfellers' lawyer, don't you reckon??
> >
> > I know . . . let's put him in charge of the Human Rights Commission!!
> >
> > I was, as I said, very pleasantly surprised and not a little bit
> regretful
> > that I had boycotted the Enquiry, when I discovered that the "G" word
got
> > the nod in the end. But there is a major, major problem. The
> > Recommendations in the Report avoid dealing with the true victims of the
> > crime who are quietly left out of the picture. This is done by creating
> an
> > emphasis on individuals who suffered while the process was in full
swing.
> >
> > But aren't they the real victims, I hear you say?
> >
> > Genocide is a crime that is committed in the first instance, against
> GROUPS.
> > Individual members are not so much the victims, they are, I would argue
> > "collateral damage". It is true that Jews executed in gas chambers and
> > Koori kids fucked by priests are obviously victims at a personal level,
> but
> > that must not be allowed to become smoke and mirrors, obscuring the fact
> > that the primary target, the primary victim, of the Crime of Genocide is
> the
> > human group that the perpetrator is trying to wipe out.
> >
> > Don't let them confuse you with this "cultural genocide is not in the
> > Convention" bullshit, either. When the perpetrator forcibly takes a
child
> > away to be raised by the other group, then acculturation is the SOLE
> > objective. It may be true that forcing acculturation by smashing
> synagogues
> > or sacred sites is not caught by the Convention, but forcing
acculturation
> > by stealing children certainly is.
> >
> > The true paradox of the crime is that it is possible to commit genocide
> > without harming the individual. The most successful acts of genocide
> > committed here in Australia were performed by white people who truly
> > accepted and loved the children as their own, who so completely
succeeded
> as
> > parents that the individual children became successfully and completely
> > acculturated and have never considered themselves as victims at all -
> people
> > who would never dream of launching a "Stolen Generations" court case.
The
> > ones who are thinking about launching such a case SHOULD be launching it
> not
> > on behalf of themselves, but on behalf of their own group. Box these
> bloody
> > lawyers in a bit, by focussing on the real issues.
> >
> > . The practice of forcible removal here continued for a full generation
> > after Australia signed the Convention and as far as I can tell, it was
> never
> > even labelled Genocide.by anyone at all until 1991. Genocide in
Australia
> > has succeeded beyond Adolph Hitler's wildest dreams, precisely because
it
> is
> > warm huggy bunny rug genocide. We must not be swayed by the denialists
who
> > promote the European stereotype of bloodstained jackboots
> >
> > In fact, I would argue that the actions of mass murderers and pedophile
> > priests are more likely to have the opposite effect to that intended.
The
> > deep resentment held by survivors of great personal tragedy suffered in
> the
> > course of a genocidal campaign against a human group provides the
backbone
> > of group resilience, the fire in the belly that is essential to future
> group
> > survival, the toughness that will outlast the race criminal in the end.
> > Nothing will put out that fire more quickly than a good bellyful of warm
> > mother's milk. The race criminal wants to see their victims most of all
> > placid, docile, domesticated. The crime must continue. What better way
> to
> > achieve this than by persuading all and sundry, but most of all the
> > individuals who were the collateral damage that THEY are the real
victims,
> > and the best thing for them is an even bigger white tit, and an even
> bigger,
> > warmer, softer, huggy, bunny rug?
> >
> > "Never again" became the motto of the young Jews after World War Two,
two
> > words that lit the fire in their belly and put muscle on their backbone,
> and
> > LOOK OUT . . . God help anybody that fucks with the Jews today. The
Jews
> > did not get where they are today by standing passively in a blanket
queue
> > with their hand out. . .
> >
> > "Never again" has too much of a lean to it for my taste. "Never again"
> > tells me more about the race criminal than it does about the Jewish
> victims.
> > "Never again" says that the race criminal is under control . . . "Never
> > again" says it can never happen again, but it has (maybe not to the
> Jews),
> > and it will . . .and the Jews themselves have done things themselves
since
> > that time which are, to say the least, unfortunate. . . .
> >
> > In Australia, we, the victims, can not say "Never again", because it is
> > beyond our power to control the perpetrators, particularly when the main
> > perpetrators are the parliaments with a silent complicit judiciary. We
> > will survive, if it does happen again, BUT ONLY IF WE WANT TO. That is
a
> > conscious decision that only we must take. Or we can stand in another
> > blanket queue.
> >
> > It seems to me that blackfellers in a blanket queue are facing in the
same
> > direction as Jews lined up to board a cattle truck - they are both
heading
> > for extinction.
> >
> > "HERE FOREVER!" is the only civilised response to the Australian
genocide.
> >
> > "HERE FOREVER!" we ourselves must assert. But who is "here forever"?
> > Certainly not the individuals. You and I will be gone in a few short
> years.
> > No. The real victims of Australian genocide are not the individuals.
> > Neither is the Aboriginal "race" -- that was constructed for us in
order
> to
> > trivialise or completely deny who we really are. Well, who is "here
> > forever" then?
> >
> > . . . . here follows a Letter to the Editor that the Koori Mail would
not
> > publish last year . . .
> >
> > The 'S'-word
> >
> > Charles Moran is right to question this process of "Reconciliation" as
> > treaty in disguise. Treaty by stealth, more better. Treaty without
> > consultation. This process will ultimately destroy us. That has been
my
> > view since 1991 when I first read these words written by Lois
O'Donoghue:
> > "... it seems to me that the process of reconciliation is asking
> Aboriginal
> > people to stop beating their heads against the now unalterable facts of
> > Australian history. We have, to a large extent, been swept aside by the
> > immensely powerful forces that have occupied our country.... We must
> > reconcile ourselves to this fact and to our weakness, our 1.5%, and work
> > towards a realistic accommodation with modern Australia."
> > If John Howard doesn't like the word "Sorry", he absolutely hates the
word
> > "Genocide". So, being "realistic", Senator Ridgeway has not only
> > accommodated John Howard's refusal to apologise, but the Commonwealth
> > Parliament completely got away with trivialising its crimes of genocide
as
> > "mistreatment of many indigenous Australians". MISTREATMENT!!??
> >
> > The forcible removal of Aboriginal children was intended to destroy
> GROUPS.
> > Genocide is a crime that is committed, in the first instance, against
> > GROUPS. Those groups are the Darkinong, the Bundjalung, the Yuin, etc..
> The
> > label "Indigenous Australians" may be comfortable for Reconciliators
and
> > genocide deniers, but whatever it tells O'Donoghue, Djerkkura and
> Ridgeway,
> > it only tells me "complete surrender", and worse, that genocide has
> quietly
> > gone underground to fertilise the Doctrine of Terra Nullius which
thrives
> > today as the taproot of Australia's Britannic sovereignty.
> > The S-word for these groups is not "Sorry", it is "SOVEREIGNTY" -- not
as
> a
> > grant of racist patronage from Her Majesty's Parliament, but something
we
> > ourselves assert.
> > We cannot afford to compromise on matters of basic principle. THE ONLY
> > TREATIES OUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN WILL RESPECT US FOR ARE THE TREATIES WE
> > SIGN WITH EACH OTHER.
> > ["open last" attachment now]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------
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/
