Ethics teacher stood down stolen generations

[Bogan]

f66.png

[cods]

Brian I would like the link thank you....

and dont tell me aborigines havent been compensated....

I could tell you a story about a someone who I consider is a member of my family..

yes she is claiming aboriginal blood....I have only just found this out...she bears no resemblance to aboriginals whatever..

yes she gets what they get?.. and you sir would be surprised...do I approve...what can I say ? so many do it and get away with it why not her..

but dont ever think aboriginals are not compensated..one way or another.

[brian ross]

Brian I would like the link thank you....

I provided a link, Cods. Perhaps you need to learn to read?

and dont tell me aborigines havent been compensated....

In comparison, the Indigenous Australians have to prove in court their need for compensation. The Orphans don't. Hardly fair, hey?

I could tell you a story about a someone who I consider is a member of my family..

yes she is claiming aboriginal blood....I have only just found this out...she bears no resemblance to aboriginals whatever..

yes she gets what they get?.. and you sir would be surprised...do I approve...what can I say ? so many do it and get away with it why not her..

but dont ever think aboriginals are not compensated..one way or another.

You asked for specific compensation. I provided a link to where it was stated the Orphans had received $24 million dollars compensation.

Now, as to your friend's "resemblance to Aboriginals" - that is immaterial. Something the Bolter learned to his cost. What matters is ancestry. If an individual can prove they are part Indigenous and they are accepted as Indigenous by other Indigenes, then they are considered by the Government to be indigenous. Now, your family friend may be "trying it on". If she is, she will ultimately be the one to lose, as will the real Indigenous Australians. However, to blame Indigenous Australians for this occurring is IMO rather unfair but typical of your mindset...

Tell me, do you believe Michael Mansell is Indigenous?

[cods]

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.

they did what they did thinking it was for the BEST.. anyone would think it only happened to aboriginal children and no it didnt....each and every generation has suffered in one way or another through actions they have had no control over... how would you like to spend 6 years living in fear of a bomb blowing you up at any time of the day?...thats what my family lived with are they suing the govt or whinging day in day out.??


help the aboriginals to overcome history not reliving it day to day...which is what people like you do....you want them to be children and helpless and dependent......it makes YOU feel better what an abuser you are...

[cods]

Judge's 'clearly offensive' Indigenous parenting barb subject of complaint consideration

By Jacqueline Breen

A previously-reprimanded judge who accused a woman appearing before him of abandoning her children in "that great Indigenous fashion" to go and drink alcohol may find his "clearly offensive" comments the subject of a formal complaint, a peak legal body in the Northern Territory has said

.

if they drink themselves to death its whites fault... and should whitey try to shame them into not drinking he will get the sack...

when will whitey realise getting drunk is normal for aboriginals leaving their children to roam the streets at all hours is normal..

its nothing to be ashamed of..

we must turn a blind eye to it..and just blame whitey.

[Bogan]

Brian Ross wrote

Tell me, do you believe Michael Mansell is Indigenous?

A man with white skin, blue eyes, and blond hair? No, in my opinion he is not. In the South of the USA, "racists" claimed that if a white person had just "one drop" of African blood, they were not white, they were negroes. That was the famous "one drop rule" (There was even a Hollywood movie made where a white woman was discovered to have an African ancestor, and she spends the entire movie being treated like a slave) Now the so called "anti racists" want to apply the "one drop rule" in reverse. Anyone with one drop of aboriginal blood can claim they are aboriginal and put their snouts and front trotters in the $33 billion dollars welfare trough spent annually on this particular race.

[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.

they did what they did thinking it was for the BEST.. anyone would think it only happened to aboriginal children and no it didnt....each and every generation has suffered in one way or another through actions they have had no control over... how would you like to spend 6 years living in fear of a bomb blowing you up at any time of the day?...thats what my family lived with are they suing the govt or whinging day in day out.??

White kids were taken because of circumstance. Usually in the case of Indigenous children, they were taken because of their ancestry, Cods. They were invariably part white - fathered by white men. They were loved by their parents. They were well cared for by their parents yet they were still taken by the white authorities. You just need to read the Human Rights Commission report which started all this to read accounts of kids who were taken without need or want simply because they were Indigenous kids. The Authorities made it plain that the reason why they were taking the kids was because of their fears that the Indigenous people who, they considered a "dying race" would be reinvigorated by the infusion of White blood into them. They wanted the Indigenous peoples gone because they were an embarrassment to the white fellas. The White colonists knew they had stolen their land. They didn't want Indigenous people hanging 'round to prove they had owned the land before the White colonists arrived.

help the aboriginals to overcome history not reliving it day to day...which is what people like you do....you want them to be children and helpless and dependent......it makes YOU feel better what an abuser you are...

So easy to forget the crimes of the past, hey, Cods? So easy to ignore the injustices. So easy to ignore the suffering. So easy to ignore the destruction of people and their livilihoods. You really are foolish, you realise? People are not going to forget what happened to them and their ancestors as long as white people keep on treating them and their history as crap, Cods. You are a prime example of why they won't forget.

[brian ross]

Brian Ross wrote

Tell me, do you believe Michael Mansell is Indigenous?

A man with white skin, blue eyes, and blond hair? No, in my opinion he is not. In the South of the USA, "racists" claimed that if a white person had just "one drop" of African blood, they were not white, they were negroes. That was the famous "one drop rule" (There was even a Hollywood movie made where a white woman was discovered to have an African ancestor, and she spends the entire movie being treated like a slave) Now the so called "anti racists" want to apply the "one drop rule" in reverse. Anyone with one drop of aboriginal blood can claim they are aboriginal and put their snouts and front trotters in the $33 billion dollars welfare trough spent annually on this particular race.

You better be careful with that attitude, Bogan. The Bolter paid for similar comments about Indigenous people. Michael Mansell is an Indigenous Tasmanian person. This is what happens when white colonists steal black women and breed with them...

[Bogan]

The whole "stolen generations" hoax was the invention of one Professor Peter Reid, who like Brian Ross and NDP, appears to hate the white race, their country, their culture, and their civilisation, even though they prefer to live in it.

Due to his activism on behalf of Australia's most dysfunctional ethnic group, Read learned that many aboriginal children had been separated from their parents by successive state and federal governments for various reasons. Desperate to find something, anything, to stoke the fires of aboriginal grievance and resentment. And to find another way to get the taxpayer to give more buckets of money, over and above the incredible total of over $30 billion dollars squandered every year for no gain to 670,000 often self declared "aboriginals." Read went to Sydney's Mitchell library with a very large shovel to hopefully dig up some dirt.

He found that successive conservative and "progressive" state and Federal governments had removed aboriginal children from their parents for a number of very good reasons. The chief being, that aboriginal communities were totally dysfunctional and aboriginal people just do not look after their kids. But there were many other reasons. Two thirds were "removed" as teenagers to get them an education or a an apprenticeship that would gain them employment. Some were taken into care by their parents pleading to the government to take their kids because they admitted that they could not care for them. Others were "removed" because of the child's need for medical attention. Others were removed because they were half or even quarter caste and due to full blooded aboriginal's hatred of "yeller feller" half castes, governments were worried that if the children were not removed from a tribal situation, they were in danger of being murdered. Others were "removed" after being arrested for juvenile delinquency.

From this "research" Read spun up the yarn that became known as "the stolen generations" and sold it to a gullible intellectual caste who seem to think that it is a mark of high intelligence to always find fault in their successful society. Like a fish story, it grew in the telling. Read had accessed only the NSW files, from this he deduced that nationwide, “100,000” aboriginal children” had been “stolen from their parents”, and he even named two of them, Lowitja O’Donnahue and Charlie Perkins.

Neither Ms O’Donnahue nor Mr Perkins was ever “stolen.”

The accusation from Read was, that for decades, successive conservative and "progressive" state (read Labor) and Federal governments had been engaged in the practice of "stealing" aboriginal children, by tearing them away from the beseeching arms of their parents. This was in order to "breed out the black", and therefore commit "genocide" on the aboriginal race. It was such an idiotic charge that nobody except Brian Ross, NDP, or a Humanities graduate could be stupid enough to believe it. But there exists within Australian society a whole army of self flagellating Brian Ross clones who are desperate to believe anything which can be used to prove that their own society equates to Nazi Germany.

According to Keith Windshuttle, who later examined the same records as Read, there were only three references out of thousands in the Mitchell Library's records which could be construed by a hostile researcher as supporting a case that aboriginal children were removed for reasons which were not in accordance with a humanitarian reason. One case had under the "reason for removal" heading "for being aboriginal" and two others had just "aboriginal" under the heading.

Read then addressed a taxpayer funded talkfest in which he told the shocked and startled aboriginal attendees that for nearly a hundred years, successive Australian governments of the white race had committed a crime of Biblical proportions on them by “stealing”100,000 of “ their children, something that up till then they were strangely unaware of.

Naturally, the circling schools of ambulance chasing, human rights lawyer sharks smelled blood in the water. This was a new opportunity to enrich themselves on the rivers of gold provided by the long suffering Aussie taxpayer. Around 2000 writs for "compensation" for this dastardly deed were quickly filed, with each one valued at a around a million dollars each.

The first one was Gunnar and Cubillo vs, Federal Government. The plaintiff’s advocates had tried to push the line in court that both Gunner and Cubillo should be compensated because both Cubillo and Gunner had been illegally taken without their mother’s consent. This was, they claimed, because of a general policy by the NT government to remove all half caste aboriginal children from their families. The compensation lawyers chose Gunnar and Cubillo because, as they smilingly told the assembled TV cameras, it was the best example of children being stolen by governments. " If Cubillo and Gunnar were the best, then God help the worst because the court case failed miserably.

One of the claimants was "stolen" because her mother had asked for the child protection services to take the child, and the records which were still extant were brought to court to prove this. The other was removed when the dirty, racist white wife of the station owner learned that the mother and child had been abandoned by the child's white father, and the child's uncle was "digging his grave." She alerted the child protection agencies that the child was in mortal danger and the child was removed. Once again, the official records which "stolen generation" activists claim are missing, were produced in court to disprove Gunnar's claim.

Justice O'Loughlin said in his summation....

Peter Gunnar had never been stolen, but had been convinced by others that he must have been.

Before the Cubillo, Gunnar vs> Federal Government court case decision was handed down, the whole charge of the 'stolen generations" was handed to the High Court of Australia for a legal decision as to whether the "stolen generations" charge had any basis in legal fact. This was necessitated by the 2000 writs for compensation filed in courts. If the High court ruled that there was no case to answer, all of those writs would go right into the garbage bin where they belonged.

This became the famous Kruger Vs. Commonwealth High Court Case. The plaintiffs were seeking compensation from the Commonwealth for wrongful imprisonment and deprivation of liberty. The activist lawyers advocating for the existence of "the stolen generations" argued before the high court that their charge of wrongful imprisonment and deprivation of liberty was valid because of five reasons.

1.infringed the doctrine of separation of powers;
2.offended the common law doctrine of legal equality;
3.restricted their freedom of movement and association;
4.the removal of children constituted genocide; and
5.Removal prevented children from the free exercise of their religion

In all five cases the High Court rejected the five proposals of the "stolen generations" ambulance chasing lawyers. Legally, the "stolen generations" is a dead duck.

After the shock of the High court's decision to the activist caste (similar to the scenes of shock after Brexit, the election of Trump, and the loss of Shorten's Labor party in the last Federal election) came another blow. Justice O'Loughlin ruled against Gunnar and Cubillo.

The summations from the Judges in the Cubillo, Gunnar cases and the Kruger case give some insight into just how spurious and legally indefensible the whole "stolen generations" fiasco was.

Justice O’Loughlin. Gunnar, Cubillo vs Commonwealth

I cannot accept that submission. It failed to recognize the decisions of the High Court to which reference has already been made that classified the legislation as protectionist and beneficial. It failed to recognize that there was then, and is now, an acceptance of the need to enact special legislation and special consideration for aboriginal people. Finally, there was absolutely no causative link connecting “race” to a failure to have regard for the welfare of children.

Douglas Meaher QC, who led the defence of Guanar, Cubillo, vs. commonwealth the government.

The opinion proved to be wrong in every respect. It was wrong on the facts he assumed. It was found to be wrong by the High Court on the cause of action based upon the Constitution. It was found to be wrong by Justice O’Loughlin in respects to other causes of action.

Justice Daryl Dawson, High Court. Rejection of he "genocide" argument

……there is nothing in the 1918 Ordinance, even if the acts otherwise fall within the definition of genocide, which authorizes acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any aboriginal group. On the contrary, as has already been observed, the powers contained in the 1918 Ordinance were required to be exercised in the best interests of the aboriginals concerned or the best interests of the aboriginal population generally. The acts do not, therefore, fall within the definition of genocide contained in the Genocide Convention.
Justice Michael Mc Hugh, High Court. Rejection of the "genocide" argument.

The 1918 Ordinance did not authorize genocide. Article II of the Genocide Convention relevantly defines genocide to mean acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” as such. The acts include “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, and “forcibly removing children of the group to another group.” There is, however, nothing within the 1918 Ordinance which authorize the doing of acts “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the aboriginal race.

The High court of Australia ruled upon the five reasons the "stolen generations" lawyers used to validate the charge that aboriginal children were wrongfully imprisoned and deprived of their liberty. In other words, "stolen". The High court rejected all five reasons. The "stolen generations" charge is a legal dead duck. All 2000 writs submitted to the courts were withdrawn. But just like Trump's presidential win, or Brexit, the lefties just can't accept the verdict.

Brian Ross then brought up the "Trevorrow vs. South Australia government court case which he claimed "proved" that at least one aboriginal child had been stolen. This suggested that it validated Read's charge that 100,000 children, or 50,000 children (HREOC "Bringing them Home" report), or Robert Manne's 25,000 children were "stolen" by successive conservative and "Progressive" (meaning "Labor") governments for the purpose of committing "genocide" by breeding out the black? Well , the first thing you crazy lefties should do is settle on just how many children were "stolen." With numbers ranging from 25,000 to 100,000, it is indicative that your side has no idea what the hell it is you are talking about.

The court case centred around a sick aboriginal baby boy who was taken to hospital by his parents. The baby was removed from the hospital after doctors at the hospital diagnosed the boy as being malnourished. The child was then removed by a decent and concerned child protection officer who accepted the doctor's diagnosis. But she over stepped her authority by breaking the laws of South Australia by removing the child. No conspiracies between successive state and federal governments. No government instruction to steal babies. No genocide. No "breeding out the black." A straight out case of a decent child protection officer acting with the best of intentions, breaking the law to remove an aboriginal baby from it's parents that she genuinely thought was not being cared for.

She probably had that view because too many aboriginal parents do not take care of the kids at all. Here are few examples.

In Queensland in 2006, social workers removed an aboriginal girl from her caring white foster family because by leaving her with a white family, it was repeating the "Stolen generations" The girl, who had been pack raped at seven years old at Aurukun, was sent back to Aurukun were she was promptly pack raped again.

Sandra

In one case, FACS refused repeated requests from the police to take a 16 year old aboriginal girl into care who was sniffing solvents, selling sex for money and drugs, and associating with criminals in her outback town, deeming her “conditionally safe.” At 16 years old, Sandra weighed only 32 Kg and in 2007 was admitted to hospital “in a state of near total physical collapse.”

Deborah Melville.

Foster child Deborah died in the dirt in a suburban Darwin backyard, propped against a trailer. She was suffering from a leg infection which had spread into the bone, and was visited by FACS case workers the day before she died. A FACS worker assured the child, “I am not here to take you away.”

A manslaughter trial and coronial inquiry was told that Deborah probably died in excruciating pain, and that she had been unable to control her bowel and bladder in the days before her death. Because of this, her carers, Denise Reynolds and Tony Melville, put her outside to sit in the dirt. One witness told the manslaughter hearing that Reynold’s had said that “If Deborah wanted to wet and soil herself, she can go outside and do it like an animal.”

Though Deborah was living in filthy circumstances, FACS reported that she was “happy and healthy.”

Peter.

Seven week old Peter starved to death in the back of a hot car on the Stuart Highway in 2005. Peter was born to a drug using mother who’s six other children were known to FACS. In 2002, one of the children, a daughter, was taken (stolen?) and taken to Alice Springs Hospital at three months old, “haunted and looking like a bony skeleton.”

Peter at death weighed 1kg less than his birth weight, and during his brief life, FACS officers were repeatedly contacted with reports that the baby was extremely skinny. There were various attempts to remove Peter from his mother’s care, but she was unco-operative, and FACS did not ask the police to forcibly remove (steal) the child.

Joy.

Joy was assessed by health workers as being ‘at risk of severe harm”, and she was one of eight teenage girls in a remote mining town who were being sexually abused by a government official. The teenager, who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, had a long history of neglect in her aboriginal family. As early as two, she was deposited at a local health clinic because nobody was looking after her. But repeated attempts by the police to get FACS to intervene to protect Joy came to nothing.

[

Former Minister's Mal Brough's speech at Deakin University.

And those who have not read the report, Little Children are Sacred, its two authors visited 45 communities in the Northern Territory. They didn't find sexual abuse in some of those communities, they didn't find it in most of those communities, they found it in every single community; 45 out of 45. Think about that, the enormity of that for a moment. People coming forward with the most horrendous stories. We have children as young as three with gonorrhoea, we have twenty-four year old grandmothers, we have so many babies being born with alcohol foetal syndrome that their capacity to pass on the oral history of their people is gone before they're even born. We have physical and sexual abuse of boys and girls and men and women. It knows no boundaries.

Aboriginal children's plight in Toomalah


Authorities have been accused of turning a blind eye to child sexual abuse in the small Indigenous community of Toomelah.
Toomelah, an Aboriginal mission on the border of New South Wales and Queensland, is home to 300 people. Earlier this year 7.30 examined the breathtaking scale of dysfunction in the town. Living conditions are almost third-world, employment is non-existent, drug and alcohol abuse is off the scale, crime rates are higher than ever and children are still sexually abused.

Alice Haines now lives in Canberra, but she lived on and off in Toomelah when she was young. "As a child I had experience being sexually abused by many men," she told 7.30. "I can't comprehend how bad it got, but I think it's as bad as it can ever get ... being sodomised since you were two years of age or however young you are. "I can't believe how it can get any worse than that. That's the pitfall. Ridiculously pathetically damaging." She says the abuse is still going on back in Toomelah.

Letter to the Editor, from a doctor treating aboriginal patients.


Dr Dean Robertson, Tennant Creek Hospital, NT

Dear Dr Hutchings

I was interested to read of your “Twisting Mirrors” seminar that you are organizing (Strewth, The Australian newspaper, 5/2/10) The Australia reports that the exhibition will explore the “mimetic instruments by which current social policy and journalism in Australia construct a “performance” of a degraded indigenous social condition in order to justify ongoing state intervention in indigenous lives.”

Tonight, while I write this, I am the doctor saddled with a nightshift at Tennant Creek Hospital, some 2000 Klms north of your hallowed hall of academia. Beside me is a child with nowhere to go because all of his family members are blind drunk. The parade of the bashed and bleeding has begun. Hanging in the night air is the sickly sweet stench of blood and alcohol, cut by the plaintive wails of beaten humanity. The suffering is enormous, but is expected and even accepted by its victims. Working here is like dodging punches in a teeming public bar while stitching smashed faces. The starving babies hardly get a look in.

There is no need to “construct a performance” of a degraded indigenous social condition. All around me the indigenous social condition is utterly appalling. The more that journalism exposes the indigenous social condition, the better. Australians should be ashamed. I think that ivory tower liberals should stop wasting public money that would be better spent improving housing, health and education in indigenous communities. Quit arguing with fancy language and wake up to the reality. We all bleed the same colour.

In a case similar to the one in which a volunteer "ethics" teacher got sacked for telling the truth about the "stolen generations, a judge got reprimanded for telling the truth about too many aboriginal people neglecting their kids.

Judge's 'clearly offensive' Indigenous parenting barb subject of complaint consideration

By Jacqueline Breen

A previously-reprimanded judge who accused a woman appearing before him of abandoning her children in "that great Indigenous fashion" to go and drink alcohol may find his "clearly offensive" comments the subject of a formal complaint, a peak legal body in the Northern Territory has said.
He told another defendant's lawyer that "anthropologists" might one day study "what's called Indigenous laissez-faire parenting" to shed light on "why it is that people abandon their children on such a regular basis".

The worst aspect of continuing to promote this "stolen generations" myth is the harm it is doing to those aboriginal kids continuing to live in dysfunctional aboriginal communities where they are being mistreated, neglected, starved, raped , sodomised and even murdered. And all because a bunch of moral posturing idiots, who are more concerned about depicting their own society as something between Pol Pot and Ghengis Khan, while presenting themselves as the only possible redeemers of guilt for their corrupt and racist society.

[

Fear of Racism Puts Kids at Risk. The Australian Feb 10 2010-02-11
]Aboriginal children in state care are being exposed to violence and abuse as bureaucrats, terrified of being accused of creating another Stolen Generations, place maintenance of aboriginal culture above child safety. Retired Children’s Court magistrate Sue Dr Gordon yesterday called for a national; review of the aboriginal child placement principle, saying that aboriginal children placed in the care of relatives were regularly placed at risk.
The principle stipulates that aboriginal children should be maintained within their biological or extended family whenever possible “to enhance and preserve their culture.” Dr Gordon said its implementation regularly put children at risk in child protection jurisdictions all over the country. ‘The biggest fear of all government agencies dealing in child protection is that they are going to be labeled racist", she said. "Aboriginal people will say that it is “Another Stolen Generations. They are taking our children away.” But the Departments should be saying that it is because of neglect, because of allegations of physical, sexual abuse, whatever.”"

Another factor which tends to disprove this entire "stolen generations" hoax is that some aboriginal people have made statements of thanks, that they removed from atrocious tribal situations and either adopted by wonderfully caring and supporting white couples, or at least put into institutions were they were fed, educated, and cared for. One aboriginal woman said that as far as she was concerned, she was part of the "saved generations."

Here is one "letter to the editor" from an aboriginal man on that subject.

When I read this article my first thought was that I must live in a different country from the author. I live in the Kimberley now, having spent the past 44 years in the top end, surrounded by aboriginal people of all types, from full blood tribal to almost white urban. I have a huge indigenous family myself. My passion in life, after my family, is child protection, especially of indigenous children.

For the past four decades I have watched in disbelief as indigenous children are left in conditions the RSPCA wouldn't leave a dog in. Unfed, unwashed, uneducated, sexually and emotionally abused. Reported repeatedly to Child Protection officers by Health and Education department workers. But to no avail. Indigenous children are invariably left in conditions that wouldn't be tolerated for white children.
The standard of care requirement has been set far lower for the indigenous than the non indigenous.

One of the cases that horrified me was that of a malnourished 16month old boy from a remote out station who has been sodomised within 24 hours prior to his admission. This was not conjecture, he had the evidence still in his body, yet this poor infant was returned to his family, due to lack of evidence of a perpetrator. Imagine the outcry if that child had been white!

John Pilger is wrong, not enough children are being removed from the hell that is their life. We now have the abandoned generation.

Posted by Big Nana, Thursday, 27 March 2014 1:16:53 AM

The week before the 2016 election, the super intelligent, prescient, and always outraged Greens Party realised that they had a problem reconciling the horrendous tales of aboriginal children, some as young as 3, with gonorrhoea. It suddenly dawned on them that we-e-e-e-el, maybe it was a very good reason that aboriginal children were "stolen?" But since the Greens had very publicly supported the idea of a "stolen generations", then they were now between a rock and a hard place. If they now supported the idea that State and Federal governments should "intervene" and rescue (steal) the at risk kids, before any more of them were raped, sodomised and murdered, then they were tacitly supporting the fact the "stolen generations" were more like the "rescued generations." Worse still, that they had been wrong all along. And what was infinitely worse, that the "racists" they so publicly denounced with fire and brimstone, had been right all along.

So, they released a policy where they had a bob each way. Unable to admit that their party of Mensa's. and moral giants had ever been wrong, but not wanting aboriginal children to die or be sexually assaulted, the Greens cooked up another pie in the sky "solution". This 'solution" could still make the Greens look the epitome of humanitarian caring. Their spokesperson, Senator Rachel Siewart first declared her support for non intervention. Fewer aboriginal children should be removed from their parents who starve, bash or neglect them. "There are far too many aboriginal children in out-of-home care", she first sniffed.

But not wanting to admit that the best solution is to "steal" the at risk kids, and either allow caring white families to adopt them, or put them in an institution where at least they would be fed and educated, Rachel and her caring crew dreamed up the perfect solution which most of you have figured out already. What the Australian government must do is, (wait for it, wait for it) to spend a lot more money teaching aboriginal parents to stop starving, bashing and neglecting their kids. Ta daaaaaa!

No costing for this program was of course offered to let the taxpayers know what this latest taxpayer funded bureaucratic pipe dream was going to cost them. But since aboriginal people as individuals already cost the Australian government double what everybody else costs in terms of welfare for negligible return, you can bet it was going to be an expensive one. To Rachel and the Greens, only billions of dollars of more taxpayer money on top of the incredible $33 billion already spent on 670,000 self declared "aborigines" can "close the gap" between aboriginal dysfunction and the rest of society.

Back in the real world, the High Court decision which effectively quashed the whole idea of any legally proven "stolen Generation" hardly made the mainstream news. This crucial bit of inconvenient truth was drowned out completely by the mainstream media, who chose instead to publish blazing banner headlines of the fake news "Bringing them Home" report, published by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. The mainstream press were not going to let the legally proven facts get in the way of their heart wrenching stories, of a beaten aboriginal people cruelly mistreated by the "sorry book" signing white oppressors.

The HREOC report, published at the same as the High Court decision, simply recounted hundreds of tales of supposedly heart wrenching stories told by compensation seeking aboriginal people that were not corroborated in any way. Bringing Them Home did not provide any evidence that the Inquiry attempted to distinguish false or exaggerated claims about experiences. They took the claims at face value, hardly the sort of rigorous examination necessitated by anyone advocating a monstrous allegation.


By the time the HREOC report was published, the HREOC had dropped the figure of "stolen" children from Read's incredible 100,000 to a hopefully more credible 50,000. But author Professor Robert Manne thought that that was probably stretching things a bit too far, so when he wrote his book about the "stolen Generations" entitled “In Denial, the Stolen Generation and the Right”, he claimed that the “true figure” was 25,000. From this, he named only four, and one of them was the celebrated Lorna Cubillo, who the courts say was not “stolen”, while another was from a case in 1903.

The entire tale spun by the HREOC was a bigger fabrication than the “secret women’s business.”

In Victoria, the "Stolen generations task force" could not find even one stolen aboriginal child, even after placing large advertisements in every newspaper offering large cash compensation to any person of aboriginal descent who could say that they were stolen. The only things that got stolen was the funding for the "Stolen Generations Victoria". This was another publicly funded, aboriginal only staffed government quango set up as a "support group" for "stolen aboriginal children". The Police were called when $100,000 dollars meant to compensate these non existent children apparently stuck to the palms of the "support group" administrators and could not be accounted for.

Meanwhile, aboriginal children in the "care" of their totally dysfunctional parents or publicly paid aboriginal "carers" continue to die, so that the Greens, NDP, and the Brian Ross clones can preen themselves and think that they are the keepers of the gate for all that is good and holy.

In WA in 2001, an aboriginal boy died from malnutrition and pneumonia. The mother had failed to feed the boy adequately or give him his prescribed medicines for his many infections. When a female doctor begged an aboriginal social services case worker to have the boy's younger sister (who was in even worse condition than him) removed (stolen) to a hospital, she was told that she did not understand aboriginal ways. The deputy coroner noted in his findings of the death. "Experience has shown that in the long term, taking aboriginal children from their families is not an effective solution socially, but in this case it was medically advisable. We have a dead child."

In NSW, five month old Mundine Orcher died after what the coroner called "a systematic attack" while in the care of relatives, and a day after Department of Community Services officials had given a free fridge and washing machine to the family. DOCS had advised their staff that 'the indigenous community needs to be treated, in child protection terms, with constant sensitivity to the historical impact of....the Stolen Generations."

Again in NSW, the Child Death Review Team wondered why the children of aboriginal drug addicts were 11 times more likely to die than the children of drug addict parents from the rest of the Australian community. They concluded that it was alright to take into care at risk aboriginal children now, but they continued to push the line that this had no connection to the racist government policies in defence of aboriginal children in the past. They said that "A history of inappropriate intervention with aboriginal families should not lead now to equally inappropriate lack of intervention to aboriginal children at serious risk."

This logic is breathtaking in it's hypocrisy.

In other words, when government did it in the past, it was not because they had humanitarian feelings, it was because they were unrepentant racists committing genocide. But if we do exactly the same thing as the "racists" did in the past, it is OK because our intentions are noble and good.

Apparently, it is only by Australians abasing ourselves to our educated socialist superiors, and confessing our ancestors supposed sins, can Australians ever hope for atonement of these supposed sins of our forefathers. Or forepersons. Or something.

[brian ross]

What happened to not debating the Stolen Generations here, Bogan? I love a man of his word...