Ethics teacher stood down stolen generations

[Nom De Plume]

I find the whole "ethics" gig to be quite amusing..
The kids are 11......
ffs why are they being taught about ethics...
Answer...the topic replaces religion.....look it up...
Parents make the decision to opt out of religious classes and they cop
ethics instead...
Someone explain to me what indiginous history has to do with ethics...
Someone explain to me also why ethics was chosen as a substitute for religion...
Maybe the kids should be taught about how ethical our politicians are...
Surely that would be a wonderful starting point....
You know...creating a role model like Jacki Trad for starters....
She could even be invited as a guest speaker.....no wait...shes too busy discussing
some sort of conveyancing issue at the moment.....
Yep..teach 11 year old kids ethics.....
Bit advanced I think for the average 11yo ankle biter...

Ethics is a good subject to be taught to children over 11 years and older. However it needs to be taught by teachers trained in ethics. The left-to-right dichotomy does not belong in ethics. At that age they should be focused on what makes a good citizen.

[Bogan]

[NDP wrote

The topic was about ethics. It was not about one man’s personal opinion on the stolen generation.

The topic, as posted by Nicole, was asking for opinions in regard to a newspaper article in which schoolchildren used an example of the so called "stolen generations" (actually, "saved generations") to make a point about homelessness to an "ethics" teacher. The "ethics" teacher invalidated the example by saying that the "stolen generations" never existed. He was then dobbed in for conduct unbecoming a PC brainwashed zombie by some of the children, and the guy was sacked. STASI Colonel Jordan Baker then praised the children for being informers on "capitalist wreckers" and aiding the secret police in rooting out heretics and class enemies of the state.

Smart people denounced STASI Colonel Baker's article which suggested that a good deed had been done, and the informers rewarded. Dumb people supported Colonel Baker's efforts to maintain the official Party line that the "stolen generations" did indeed exist.

[brian ross]

If what is happening in the aboriginal community today is anything to go by

I can well believe their parenting skills were far from great in days of yore..

all I believe is they thought they were doing the right thing...none of us were there

so we have no idea what really happened....and how it happened...

history is all about learning.........

What is happening now is because the kids were taken from their parents - multi-generationally - and they did not have any good examples on which to base their own parenting, Cods. They were placed in homes and abused by white administrators.

so any bad parenting today by our aboriginal chums is due to the stolen generation

seriously?

For many Indigenous people it is true. When your grandparents are removed from their parents and then you're removed from your parents, where do you find the good examples of how to parent children, Cods?

[brian ross]

How would you like to lose your job because of your opinion?

If you want to abuse your responsibility as a teacher paid for by the State and tell lies, well what can I say, Bobby?

It wasn't a lie - it was the truth.
Those poor kids were being abused by their drunken parents.

What didn't you understand in my original statement, Bobby? Do you need it explained to you? The Government(s) admitted what had occurred - they admitted the reasons why the kids were removed and "drunkeness" as not one of the reasons given.

That wasn't the reason given at the time.
Abusing grog was the reason.
The reason is now changed to suit a
more progressive agenda.

The reasons were given at the time. I suggest you read the report Bringing Them Home from the Australian Human Rights Commission. It is the basis on which the whole Stolen Generations idea is based. It will do you some good to actually get some facts.

[brian ross]

doesnt anyone think living in the past is holding back aboriginals

how many more years are they going to carry around a sackful of sadness.....

that cannot be undone....it doesnt make sense o me....

To be honest, Cods, not much seems to make sense to you. You've come from a relatively benign past to a benign present. You haven't suffered as much as most Indigenous people have suffered at the hands of the White Fellas.

[brian ross]

How would you like to lose your job because of your opinion?

If you want to abuse your responsibility as a teacher paid for by the State and tell lies, well what can I say, Bobby?

It wasn't a lie - it was the truth.
Those poor kids were being abused by their drunken parents.

What didn't you understand in my original statement, Bobby? Do you need it explained to you? The Government(s) admitted what had occurred - they admitted the reasons why the kids were removed and "drunkeness" as not one of the reasons given.

Oh yes, the government said it so it must be true what a naive little simpleton you are. The perfect communist pansy boy. Time to run back to the kiddie's playground with the rest of the autistic children, hmm? Tsk tsk...

Governments, rarely except when really, really pressed admit error, Reboot. Why? 'cause it opens them up to compensation claims. In the case of the Bringing Them Home report, they addmitted what has occurred and the extent they believed it had occurred. I'd suggest you read that report and like Bobby, get some facts behind your arguments, instead of just feelings. It is harrowing reading, I will admit.

[Bogan]

NDP wrote

Ethics is a good subject to be taught to children over 11 years and older. However it needs to be taught by teachers trained in ethics. The left-to-right dichotomy does not belong in ethics. At that age they should be focused on what makes a good citizen.

If you can't see the opportunity for one side or another to use "ethics" classes to brainwash children into thinking that their interpretation of morality is the only right one, then could I sell you a nice coathanger looking bridge straddling Sydney harbour for $1000 dollars? The article submitted by Nicole is a case in point. An ethics teacher presented an opposing opinion to the left wing party line slogans that the schoolchildren had already been inculcated with, and he informed on and sacked. Do you think that another "ethics" teacher with the same views replaced him?

Just look at journalism in the ABC. Unbiased? Ha! Or the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's prosecution of 5 QUT university students who wrote very mild protestations about being chucked out of an "aborigine only" study room at QUT because they were the wrong race. HREOC ex Commission Chair Gillian Triggs was a female Brian Ross. As a matter of fact, since Brian Ross supports transgenderism, maybe Gillian Triggs is Brian Ross in drag?

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

Governments, rarely except when really, really pressed admit error, Reboot. Why? 'cause it opens them up to compensation claims. In the case of the Bringing Them Home report, they admitted what has occurred and the extent they believed it had occurred. I'd suggest you read that report and like Bobby, get some facts behind your arguments, instead of just feelings. It is harrowing reading, I will admit

Any question of compensation had already been settled by the High Court of Australia which ruled that the "stolen generations" was legal fiction. The only "stolen generation compensation case was 'Cubillo and Gunner vs. federal government and It fell down flat. The judge said of Gunner's case the he had never been stolen, "but had been convinced by others that he must have been."

The Victorian Labor government set up a fund to "compensate" "stolen generations" people anyway, but they were embarrassed that no "indigenous" people in Victoria came forward because they had no recollection of being "stolen" by anyone. This was later rectified by government agents visiting "aboriginal" communities and saying "Hey, do you want some free guvmit money?"

[billy the kid]

George Orwell's 1984 comes to mind.

In the book, children were regularly lauded in the newspapers for turning in their own parents as traitors.
The children were systematically turned against their parents and taught to spy on them and report their deviations...

In the OP its children being lauded by a newspaper article for the very same thing.....

George was pretty close to the mark.....

[brian ross]

Brian Ross wrote

Governments, rarely except when really, really pressed admit error, Reboot. Why? 'cause it opens them up to compensation claims. In the case of the Bringing Them Home report, they admitted what has occurred and the extent they believed it had occurred. I'd suggest you read that report and like Bobby, get some facts behind your arguments, instead of just feelings. It is harrowing reading, I will admit

Any question of compensation had already been settled by the High Court of Australia which ruled that the "stolen generations" was legal fiction. The only "stolen generation compensation case was 'Cubillo and Gunner vs. federal government and It fell down flat. The judge said of Gunner's case the he had never been stolen, "but had been convinced by others that he must have been."

The Victorian Labor government set up a fund to "compensate" "stolen generations" people anyway, but they were embarrassed that no "indigenous" people in Victoria came forward because they had no recollection of being "stolen" by anyone. This was later rectified by government agents visiting "aboriginal" communities and saying "Hey, do you want some free guvmit money?"

The High Court? I assume you're referring to the case of Kruger v Commonwealth? It did not rule that the Stolen Generations were legal. What it ruled was in that case, there was insufficient evidence to prove that they were illegal, Bogan.

The High Court upheld the validity of the 1918 Ordinance but that removal could only occur if it was considered as being best interests of the Aboriginal child, "judged by the values and standards prevailing at the time". In this way the Court left open the possibility that the removal of some Aboriginal children may not have been authorised by the 1918 Ordinance. Only one member of the Stolen Generations, Bruce Trevorrow in South Australia,[27] has obtained compensation as a result of litigation.[2] Limited compensation schemes have been implemented in New South Wales and South Australia.[28]

[Source]

You would be much better at look at the case Trevorrow v State of South Australia in which Bruce Trevorrow proved he was stolen from his parents and was awarded over $525,000. There is the matter of Tasmania where Under the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal Children Act 2006 compensation was distributed between living members of the Stolen Generations but also the children of those who had died. 106 Aboriginal people qualified for one-off compensation. In June 2011 Neville Austin became the first victim of the Stolen Generations in Victoria to gain compensation from the Victorian Government. So, perhaps instead of crowing over one case, why not look at the multiple cases which have succeeded?