Ethics teacher stood down stolen generations

[Bogan]

Hey Brian, could you get back on the "races are equal" thread so that I can continue to kick your arse?

[cods]

cods wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:37 am
Brian I would like the link thank you....

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

one brownie point to you bri bri... I dont read much of what you post to others...its too embarrassing usually...

from the top of your own LINK..

Claiming compensation is a "brutally hard" process, hampered by missing records. For Aboriginal people compensation would help them in their healing proces

Source: Compensation for Stolen Generation members - Creative Spirits, retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aborig ... mbers#toc4

there you go.. ina court of LAW you need papers..we all do... I cant just walk into a court claim I need/deserve compensation heres why? I said so... thats why...


even the kids who were sent here still had documents......aboriginals dont keep files do they????? only weird stories of history that all gets changed when its handed down by word of mouth....... no writing or pictures.....


I have not long found out a member of my family is claiming aboriginality....and boy you wouldnt believe what she gets...

she neither ,looks aboriginal nor does the father whom she has not long met.. yet he claims his mother was aboriginal.....

she told me one of the fathers brothers told her the mother was from Mauritius ..

you do not have to PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF DOUBT... just put your hand up and defy anyone to argue with you...

I am thinking of doing it myself.....what she gets makes your eye water.

[brian ross]

Indigenous kids who were taken weren't in charge of the files, Cods. White Coppers and administrators were. Funny that, hey?

Kids were taken. This has been accepted by the Government(s) of Australia, federally and state/territory level. They have admitted that kids were taken. Funny how, though, they place all these barriers in front of them claiming compensation, yet they don't place any of those barriers in front of the Orphaned kids...

[billy the kid]

Hey cods...if you find out where to sign up...let me know...I need a few quid to for the Melbourne Cup carnival...
If I claim Im part aboriginal that will help the budget a fair bit...…
Sorry I forgot my tsk tsk...…
tsk tsk.....hhhmmm…..

[Bogan]

Brine, any chance of getting some of your snooty, chardonnay sucking, educated elitist mates to come onto Political Animal? You and NDP aren't much chop and need some more lefties to ream out.

Pretty please?

[Bogan]

Brian lies again.

Indigenous kids who were taken weren't in charge of the files, Cods. White Coppers and administrators were. Funny that, hey?

It's funny how in the only "stolen generations" case that went to court, Gunnar, Cubillo vs federal government, the defence was able to prove that both Cubillo and Gunnar were not stolen, because the records were still there and they were produced in court.

As Justice O'Loughlin said in his summation.

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

Brian Ross lies again.

Kids were taken. This has been accepted by the Government(s) of Australia, federally and state/territory level. They have admitted that kids were taken. Funny how, though, they place all these barriers in front of them claiming compensation, yet they don't place any of those barriers in front of the Orphaned kids

Kids were taken for good reason and you know it. They are still being taken for good reason and you know it. But not enough because this "stolen generations" bullshit is frightening child protection officers from stepping in when they know they should. And because of that, kids are dying, iike in the Deborah Melville case. But every time a new contributor comes on a debate site, you just repeat the same old lies that have been refuted before, time and time again. You refuse to write any argument that would support your position that the "stolen generation" ever existed, you dodge questions, and reply to more experienced posters with sneery one liners.

You know that the so called "stolen generation" is bullshit but you keep advocating it and promote a monstrous lie. And this from a man who pretends that he is a pillar of moral rectitude? What's it like to have aboriginal kids blood on your hands, Brian? Just so that you can show solidarity with your public servant mates who have cushy jobs in "Aboriginal Affairs", where too much of the fabulous $33 billion p.a. spent every year sticks to the fingers of the bureaucrats?

[brian ross]

Brian lies again.

Indigenous kids who were taken weren't in charge of the files, Cods. White Coppers and administrators were. Funny that, hey?

It's funny how in the only "stolen generations" case that went to court...

When you stop lying, Bogan you might be able to argue your case better. There have been numerous Stolen Generation cases which have come to court. Address those, instead of always resorting to one case that failed. Their cases succeeded.

Oh and before we forget:

The court found that the documentary records justified a finding that the Commonwealth government had, since about 1911, pursued a policy of removing some part-Aboriginal children and placing them in institutions in Alice Springs and Darwin, [200]. The Commonwealth failed to persuade the court that there were no non-consensual removals of children, [200]. In relation to the written policy approved by the Commonwealth minister in 1952, O’Loughlin J said:

Despite the submissions by the Commonwealth to the contrary, I cannot accept that the policy, as finally approved by Sir Paul Hasluck, meant that a part-Aboriginal child could only be removed if his or her mother consented. [237]

The judgment also acknowledged the lasting nature of the ‘terrible pain’ that the children and their families suffered, [443]. For example, in Mrs Cubillo’s case His Honour accepted the applicant’s evidence that her removal from her Aboriginal family by patrol officers:

would have been a sad and traumatic event, one that would leave a lasting impression on a young mind. Mrs Cubillo said that she has suffered in silence and that she continues to suffer. I believe her. [445]

He found that the children at Retta Dixon Home were punished for speaking their own language, [593]; that Mrs Cubillo ‘craved for, but did not receive the love and affection that she needed’, [635]; that severe corporal punishment was administered [1266]; that she suffered severely during her period of detention, [1247]; that she was housed in overcrowded and inadequate conditions, [1247]; and that ‘her removal and continued presence at Retta Dixon was responsible for her loss of Aboriginal culture and her native tongue’, [657]. He accepted that there was a causative relationship between her removal and detention and her continuing mental injuries, [1493].

These findings, and others made in Peter Gunner’s case, vindicate the claims of the stolen children about their experiences of removal and detention, the nature of the loss and harm that followed, and the persistence of their suffering.

[Source]

[Bogan]

Brine Ross wrote

When you stop lying, Bogan you might be able to argue your case better. There have been numerous Stolen Generation cases which have come to court. Address those, instead of always resorting to one case that failed. Their cases succeeded.

Have they now? Well, I will be happy to admit that I was wrong if you could provide the number of cases, and a link to them.. Surprise me. Sheer common sense tells me you are talking crap. The High Court has squashed the whole "stolen generations" hoax so if there are any court cases, they will be just like the Trevorrow case that had nothing to do with the monstrous accusation that "Successive state and federal governments had illegally "stolen" "indigenous" children from their parents, in order to commit "genocide" by "breeding out the black." C'mon, Briney, put up or shut up.

Briney tried

Oh and before we forget:

The court found that the documentary records justified a finding that the Commonwealth government had, since about 1911, pursued a policy of removing some part-Aboriginal children and placing them in institutions in Alice Springs and Darwin, [200]. The Commonwealth failed to persuade the court that there were no non-consensual removals of children, [200]. In relation to the written policy approved by the Commonwealth minister in 1952, O’Loughlin J said:

Too easy, Brian. The Commonwealth has never denied taking aboriginal children from their parents for the child's own good. That is still happening today. But it is not happening enough because of the stupid PC policies which have frightened child protection officers so much, that they are reluctant to take even the most severe cases of aboriginal child neglect, as in the Deborah Melville case, where the girl died.

Here are three cases of aboriginal child neglect which I posted earlier, but unsurprisingly, you did not comment on. So I challenge you Brian. You are so intelligent and so morally upstanding, I want you to tell us all just what should have been done in these cases. Don't dodge it, Brian... Don't be a coward and walk away.

ANSWER THE BLOODY QUESTION.

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.”

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.

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."

Come on, you paragon of moral virtue. What was best? Leaving the kid there? Or "stealing" it and putting the child into state care? However "traumatic it may have been for the child.

DON"T DODGE THE QUESTION.

Briney tries another misdirection instead of a reasoned argument.

Despite the submissions by the Commonwealth to the contrary, I cannot accept that the policy, as finally approved by Sir Paul Hasluck, meant that a part-Aboriginal child could only be removed if his or her mother consented.

Justice O'Loughlin does not accept that the policy of removing children from their parents could only be done with the parents consent. So what? According to the High Court, removing aboriginal children from their parents was simply a government policy, and that policy was not against the law It was certainly not "genocide", and as one High Court judge wrote in his summation, it was "a humanitarian obligation."

Briney submitted.

The judgment also acknowledged the lasting nature of the ‘terrible pain’ that the children and their families suffered, [443]. For example, in Mrs Cubillo’s case His Honour accepted the applicant’s evidence that her removal from her Aboriginal family by patrol officers:

would have been a sad and traumatic event, one that would leave a lasting impression on a young mind. Mrs Cubillo said that she has suffered in silence and that she continues to suffer. I believe her.

The records presented to the court showed that Lorna Cubillo had been surrendered to the state at her own request because she could care for the child. The fact that the child suffered emotional trauma does not validate the monstrous accusation that successive state and federal government "stole" aboriginal children from their parents in order to commit "genocide" by "breeding out the black"

Briney tries and fails again.

He found that the children at Retta Dixon Home were punished for speaking their own language, [593]; that Mrs Cubillo ‘craved for, but did not receive the love and affection that she needed’, [635]; that severe corporal punishment was administered [1266]; that she suffered severely during her period of detention, [1247]; that she was housed in overcrowded and inadequate conditions, [1247]; and that ‘her removal and continued presence at Retta Dixon was responsible for her loss of Aboriginal culture and her native tongue’, [657]. He accepted that there was a causative relationship between her removal and detention and her continuing mental injuries, [1493].

Which was still an improvement over living in humpies in tribal encampments and suffering from being covered with flies, malnutrition, getting raped, sodomised, mistreated, neglected, starved to death, and even murdered, as is happing in aboriginal tribal societies, right now.

Briney tries again.

These findings, and others made in Peter Gunner’s case, vindicate the claims of the stolen children about their experiences of removal and detention, the nature of the loss and harm that followed, and the persistence of their suffering.

It does not validate the monstrous claim that successive state and federal government "stole" aboriginal children from their parents, in order to commit "genocide" by "breeding out the black." And it does not address the fact that removing at risk aboriginal children from their parents can be easily be seen as entirely humanitarian and benign in intent. But if you are a left winger desperate to portray white society as something akin to Nazi Germany, then you are not going to let the truth get in the way of your monstrous accusation. Which is kind of funny since the removal of half caste aboriginal children from their parents, and educating them to take their place in society as equally productive and respected people, was originally proposed by the Communist party of Australia, according to Keith Windshuttel.

[cods]

Indigenous kids who were taken weren't in charge of the files, Cods. White Coppers and administrators were. Funny that, hey?

Kids were taken. This has been accepted by the Government(s) of Australia, federally and state/territory level. They have admitted that kids were taken. Funny how, though, they place all these barriers in front of them claiming compensation, yet they don't place any of those barriers in front of the Orphaned kids...

how can they deny kids were taken'

hey dumbarse kids are taken away from BAD PARENTS EVEN TODAY..sadly not enough imo

its the REASON why they were removed is the point..

you have no idea you were not there...you read and believe just one version like you do with everything...



as I have pointed out a family member is doing very very nicely by claiming shes aboriginal....no checks made.....no blood tests...the aboriginal "sorry culture" is draining this country and making them charity dependent for years to come....

well done bri bri.

[Bogan]

That's the whole point, Cods. The more welfare dependent "indigenous", the more jpbs for Brian's public service mates.