NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to the situation that has arisen with China accusing Japan of glossing over atrocities committed during WW2 in textbooks, Aussie PM John Howard has stated that "all nations should be frank about their past..."

This is the man who refuses to fully acknowledge atrocities against Indigenous people? Refuses to acknowledge a Stolen Generation?

What a hypocrite.

Sounds like a wonderful person!

meh, sounds like something howard would say.

meh, sounds like something howard would say.
Well you know, he can tell other countries what to do with themselves, but god forbid they tell Australia what to do!

Well you know, he can tell other countries what to do with themselves, but god forbid they tell Australia what to do!

Sounds like G.W. and his Funky Bunch!

Sounds like something he would say. A good man, that one. :rolleyes:

LOL I think it has something to do with the name, Michael Howard wants to cut immigration even though he was an immigrant.

Michael Howard wants to cut immigration even though he was an immigrant.

This man is obviously insane.

This man is obviously insane.

Being leader of the conservative party will do that ;)

Being leader of the conservative party will do that ;)

Hahaha, same over here!

*Wishes the mods would rename this thread "John Howard: Think then don't talk."*

;)

*Wishes the mods would rename this thread "John Howard: Think then don't talk."*

;)

*wishes the same*

For those of us who are ignorant of Australian internal politics, what is the "Stolen Generation"? Just curious

For those of us who are ignorant of Australian internal politics, what is the "Stolen Generation"? Just curious

The generation of Aboriginal children who were forcibly taken from their parents.

Oh, Mr Sheen - I mean Mr Howard...That might have been funny if the intention to obliterate an entire (Australian Indigenous) race and culture from the earth hadn't been so effective. (Nazi-issue biscuit and a Fanta, anyone?)

Does anyone else here believe that the breaches of, nay the total _disregard_ for the Geneva Convention that we've seen in the violation of Afghanistan and Iraq are a tad reminiscent of the horrific torture and abuse that Allied soldiers endured in Japanese POW camps? Is it just me or do you people also remember being told stories by elderly relatives about how inhumane these camps were? How cruel and evil the Japanese culture was regarded, based on the standard of treatment they gave to their prisoners?

How quickly we forget the way that the Japanese were labelled when we try to ignore the prisoner abuse perpetrated by the US and its collaborators.

I'll start by saying sucked in to all you hippy pacifist conspiracy theorists, The liberals won.

Boodicka: I wish I could compare two completely differant occurances from differant periods in time and preach rubbish to people as well as you can. The people responsible of mistreating prisoners have been punished, but I'm thinking we should just behead them like terrorists do to us.

Concerning the stolen generation: I can see how John Howard is personally responsible for what happened before he was in power. All I can say is perhaps we should stop taking all children away from parents who abuse their kids. It is an unfortunate circumstance but many people of the stolen generation have gone on to be grateful for the new life and EDUCATION!!! given to them. But maybe we should just leave them to sort their own problems out.

I wonder how many people understand what life was like under Saddam. His kids were guilty of killing and raping people. A couple of "princes" who were not only above the law but had an army backing them. Iraq is now a mess, but when things are as bad as what Iraq was like it is expected.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stuart Mill, In Fear

John Howard, I hate the man and what he stands for. Such a hypocrite in every sense of the word. :headbang:

If he is a hypocrit in "every sense of the word" give me some good examples. How about stating an argument and not just a sentence.

Edit: The topic is a perfect example. Think before you talk your idiocy! "I hate for what he stands for" well he is the leader and figurehead for Australia so you hate Australia, a country that stands and fights for freedom and equality for all individuals regardless of race or gender. Not sure why you would hate that.

And while i'm at it, this link should explain why we needed to go to war.
Saddam's Genocide Evidence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20050416/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mass_graves)

How about stating an argument and not just a sentence.
You mean, like this brilliant statement of yours?
I'll start by saying sucked in to all you hippy pacifist conspiracy theorists :rolleyes:

well he is the leader and figurehead for Australia so you hate Australia, a country that stands and fights for freedom and equality for all individuals regardless of race or gender.

What a load of crap. Spare us. I love Australia very much, which is why I hate the fact that John Howard is leader, because the way I see it, HE SUCKS!
I stand for equality and freedom, which is exactly why I will not stand for John Howard. :eek:

He sent our troops to invade Iraq, in the name of freedom, but the way our forces went about it, the Iraqi’s are not free! Iraq is such a bloody mess. Now, I’m not going to start arguing why I think our invasion of Iraq goes against freedom, because this debate has been done to death! If you don’t already see it, you never will and I don’t have time to waste to argue with the likes of you.


Australia, a country that stands and fights for freedom and equality for all individuals regardless of race or gender.
Yes well, Australia’s appalling and disgraceful treatment of asylum seekers (people in genuine need of safety) certainly goes against what we are meant to stand for (and this is simply one example of hypocrisy).
This policy is disgraceful. Most third world countries (and Western countries) treat asylum seekers better and accept far more than Australia does! There is a reason why Australia's asylum seeker policies are considered to be cruel and not necessary by the rest of the world.
The Australian government should be ashamed of itself in this aspect.

Lightwolf, you really shouldn’t believe everything the media feeds you about our ‘wonderful’ policies. You’re free to worship Howard all you like. Though, before you start preaching that those of us who don't worship Howard musn't value freedom and equality, do some research on Australia's policies. Just because John Howard's policies are in the name of freedom and equality, doesn't mean they achieve this. Sorry but actions speak louder than words.

Oh, Mr Sheen - I mean Mr Howard...That might have been funny if the intention to obliterate an entire (Australian Indigenous) race and culture from the earth hadn't been so effective. (Nazi-issue biscuit and a Fanta, anyone?)

Does anyone else here believe that the breaches of, nay the total _disregard_ for the Geneva Convention that we've seen in the violation of Afghanistan and Iraq are a tad reminiscent of the horrific torture and abuse that Allied soldiers endured in Japanese POW camps? Is it just me or do you people also remember being told stories by elderly relatives about how inhumane these camps were? How cruel and evil the Japanese culture was regarded, based on the standard of treatment they gave to their prisoners?

How quickly we forget the way that the Japanese were labelled when we try to ignore the prisoner abuse perpetrated by the US and its collaborators.

ok...and what does any of that have to do with australia...i agree that australia should deal with its own past before delving into the past affairs of others, but how does that relate to Guantanomo Bay in any way, shape or form?

Schmucker']ok...and what does any of that have to do with australia...i agree that australia should deal with its own past before delving into the past affairs of others, but how does that relate to Guantanomo Bay in any way, shape or form?

It does not (unless you count Hicks and Habib), which is why it wasn't even mentioned until you bought it up.

ok...then what was the quote i mentioned referring too? perhaps not guantanomo bay only, but the treatment of all POWs and "enemy combatants" or whatever spin you want to put on it...

You mean, like this brilliant statement of yours?
:rolleyes:



What a load of crap. Spare us. I love Australia very much, which is why I hate the fact that John Howard is leader, because the way I see it, HE SUCKS!
I stand for equality and freedom, which is exactly why I will not stand for John Howard. :eek:

Well I guess saying he sucks is a great argument. Bravo.



Yes well, Australia’s appalling and disgraceful treatment of asylum seekers (people in genuine need of safety) certainly goes against what we are meant to stand for (and this is simply one example of hypocrisy).
This policy is disgraceful. Most third world countries (and Western countries) treat asylum seekers better and accept far more than Australia does! There is a reason why Australia's asylum seeker policies are considered to be cruel and not necessary by the rest of the world.
The Australian government should be ashamed of itself in this aspect.


Lightwolf, you really shouldn’t believe everything the media feeds you about

I think we should just open the gates. Who cares if criminals come into our country. The more the merrier hey? I think you should stop believing all YOU read and hear. Many of the people in detention centres are there because they are not real refugees. I feel sorry for those immigrants who try to come here from countries that are not as well off as us but why should they get in when they do not go about entering the country in the LEGAL way that thousands of new Australians do every year.

Schmucker']ok...then what was the quote i mentioned referring too? perhaps not guantanomo bay only, but the treatment of all POWs and "enemy combatants" or whatever spin you want to put on it...

Does anyone else here believe that the breaches of, nay the total _disregard_ for the Geneva Convention that we've seen in the violation of Afghanistan and Iraq are a tad reminiscent of the horrific torture and abuse that Allied soldiers endured in Japanese POW camps?

I would say that the quote you were refering to was mentioning Iraq and Afghanistan, and the role Australians played in 'interviewing' suspects there, but that's just crazy ole me... Guantanomo Bay has nothing to do with Australia.

I think we should just open the gates. Who cares if criminals come into our country. The more the merrier hey? I think you should stop believing all YOU read and hear. Many of the people in detention centres are there because they are not real refugees. I feel sorry for those immigrants who try to come here from countries that are not as well off as us but why should they get in when they do not go about entering the country in the LEGAL way that thousands of new Australians do every year.
Um, they may not BE ABLE to enter the country legally, there may not be a "queue" in their country etc. Australia's refugee quota is pretty low as well.

And Lightwolf, don't believe the propaganda, ALL asylum seekers are detained while their applications are processed, which can take years. We're putting CHILDREN in desert prison camps!

A judge in New Zealand said:
Justice Baragwanath said the policy breached the United Nations Convention on Refugees, which says refugee claimants should be detained only where necessary. Necessity applied when there was a "real risk" of someone absconding or a "real risk" of a criminal offence being committed.
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/27/1023864633786.html?oneclick=true
In addition, mandatory detention causes severe psychological harm to detainees, as witnessed by their treating psychiatrists.
"The people I saw and treated at Baxter were the most damaged people I've seen in my whole psychiatric career. Up until that time, I'd never met an adult-onset bedwetter. I'd never met someone with psychological blindness. And there were also a few physically crippled people who believed they were unable to walk, and this was probably psychological too."

Also: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Childrendetention.htm
Edit: And try NOT getting all your "news" from Today Tonight or A Current Affair.

Um, they may not BE ABLE to enter the country legally, there may not be a "queue" in their country etc. Australia's refugee quota is pretty low as well.

And Lightwolf, don't believe the propaganda, ALL asylum seekers are detained while their applications are processed, which can take years. We're putting CHILDREN in desert prison camps!

A judge in New Zealand said:

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/27/1023864633786.html?oneclick=true
In addition, mandatory detention causes severe psychological harm to detainees, as witnessed by their treating psychiatrists.


Also: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Childrendetention.htm

Jesus Fucking Christ, that's terrible...

I think we should just open the gates. Who cares if criminals come into our country.
Criminals? CRIMINALS?!
Oh dear. Lightwolf, this may shock you, but the people who seek asylum are ESCAPING from the criminals. You know, the very reason why we invade countries like Iraq? How you can oppose these oppressive regimes but also oppose the people who flee from them is far beyond all sense and reason.

The fact is, approximately 90% of asylum seekers are proven to be genuine by the Australian government and are as a result given temporary protection visas, which allow them to stay in Australia for 3 years. My problem is the appalling way in which these people are treated whilst they are waiting to be processed and the unbelievable amount of time this takes (up to 4/6 years). Not to mention, children are also detained in Australia, which goes strictly against International law and the UN conventions concerning the rights of a child.


I think you should stop believing all YOU read and hear. Many of the people in detention centres are there because they are not real refugees.
For your information Lightwolf, I do not believe everything I read and hear, which is exactly why I am debating this with you. In case you have failed to notice, the mainstream media holds exactly the same disgusting attitude as yourself. The reason I beg to differ is not only because I have extensively researched this topic, I have also visited Villawood detention centre, (and believe me, I was certainly appalled by what I saw) The House of Welcome and The Asylum Seekers Centre (which provide asylum seekers with adequate help once they are released from detention centres on temporary visas).

Now, you are getting very confused between refugees and asylum seekers. To clarify migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are not the same thing. Migrants come to Australia by their own free will, and not to seek safety. Refugees and asylum seekers come to Australia to seek safety and flee persecution. Refugees are considered as legal and asylum seekers as 'illegal' (which, the majority of them are not - and rest assured, those which are, are promptly sent back to country of origin).

Under International AND Australian law, the status of asylum seekers is a LEGAL one. The fact that these people come here by boat and without legal documentation is what comes with this status.
Refugees come to Australia legally via UN processes in said country. The queues are long, and they could be waiting for years before they are allowed to come to Australia.
I'm sorry, but people desperately seeking safety don't have this luxury of waiting. More importantly, in many countries where asylum seekers come from, there are no queues! There are no proper processes to undertake, no lines to wait in. So what do you expect these people to do? Just stay in their countries and die just because there are no refugee processes in said country?

Asylum seekers come to Australia via the means they do because they do not have the luxury to wait to be processed. Do you value your life? If you do, you would do exactly the same thing under the situation.
More likely than not, there are no means in their country to be processed. No proper UN representation to process these people as refugees and in the cases where such processes do exist, they are simply inadequate.


I feel sorry for those immigrants who try to come here from countries that are not as well off as us but why should they get in when they do not go about entering the country in the LEGAL way that thousands of new Australians do every year.

I am sorry that you cannot differentiate between immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers. I am also sorry that you cannot understand why it is simply impossible for asylum seekers to enter Australia the legal way.

Go on, knock yourself out:
http://www.erc.org.au/just_comments/1029891642.shtml
http://www.chilout.org/
http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/subjects/sose/refugee.htm
http://www.truthoverboard.com/
http://www.kuringgai.net/debunking_the_myths_about_asylum.htm

Here are the facts from http://www.erc.org.au/just_comments/1029891642.shtml ------------
Myth 1 - Boat People are Queue Jumpers
Fact: In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries and supports the International coalition of nations who continue to oppose these regimes and support sanctions against them. Therefore, there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered. Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such asylum seekers are forced to continue to travel to another country to find protection.
People who are afraid for their lives are fleeing from the world’s most brutal regimes including the Taliban in Afghanistan and Sadaam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq. Antonio Domini, Head of UN Humanitarian Program in Afghanistan, states that Afghanistan is one of the most difficult places in the world in which to survive.

Myth 2 – Asylum Seekers are Illegal
Fact: This is untrue. Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that 'Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.'
People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers – a legal status under International Law. Many Asylum Seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration processes from occurring. ‘Illegals’ are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists.

Myth 3 - Australia Already Takes Too Many Refugees
Fact: Australia receives relatively few refugees by world standards. In 2001 Australia will receive only 12 000 refugees through its humanitarian program. This number has remained static for three years, despite the ever-increasing numbers of refugees’ worldwide. Australia accepted 20 000 refugees each year at the beginning of the 1980’s.
According to Amnesty International 1 in every 115 people on earth are refugees, and a new refugee is created every 21 seconds. Refugees re-settle all over the world. However, the distribution of refugees across the world is very unequal.
Tanzania hosts one refugee for every 76 Tanzanian people (1:76)
Britain hosts one refugee for every 530 British people. (1:530)
Australia hosts one refugee for every 1583 Australian people. (1:1583)

Myth 4 – We’re Being Swamped by Hordes of Boat People
Fact: 300 000 refugees arrived in Europe to seek asylum last year. In contrast, 4174 reached Australia by boat or plane. In 2000, Iran and Pakistan each hosted over a million Afghan refugees. The real burden of assisting refugees is borne in the main by the world’s poorest nations.
Myth 5 - They’re Not Real Refugees Anyway
Fact: 97% of applicants from Iraq and 93% of applicants from Afghanistan seeking asylum without valid visas in Australia in 1999 were recognised as genuine refugees. Therefore, under Australian law they were found to be eligible to stay in Australia. Generally, 84% of all asylum seekers are found to be legitimate refugees and are able to stay in Australia.

Myth 6 – They Must Be ‘Cashed up’ to Pay People Smugglers
Fact: It is alleged that people who have the resources to pay people smugglers could not possibly be genuine refugees. The UNHCR disputes claims about ‘cashed up’ refugees saying that payments made to people smugglers in fact range from $4000 - $5000 AUD. In reality, many families and communities pool their resources in an attempt to send their relatives to safety. People smuggling is a crime that the international community needs to combat. However, this does not negate the legitimacy of asylum seekers’ claims, nor their need to seek refuge. The international community, in eradicating people smuggling, is also required to address the growing numbers of asylum seekers throughout the world. As a Western nation, Australia has a role to play.

Myth 7 - There is no Alternative to Mandatory Detention
Fact: Asylum seekers claims need to be assessed for legitimacy. Australia is the only Western country that mandatorily detains asylum seekers whilst their claims are being heard. Asylum seekers are not criminals and detention should be minimal. At a cost of $104 a day per head the policy of detention is very expensive. Community based alternatives to mandatory detention can be found internationally and within the current Australian parole system.
A select Committee of the NSW Parliament has costed alternatives to incarceration including home detention and transitional housing. The average cost of community based programs are (per person, per day): Parole: $5.39. Probation: $3.94. Home Detention: $58.83. These options are clearly more economically efficient, and much more humane.
Sweden receives similar numbers of asylum seekers as Australia, despite having less than half the population. Detention is only used to establish a persons identity and to conduct criminal screening. Most detainees are released within a very short time, particularly if they have relatives or friends living in Sweden. Of the 17,000 asylum seekers currently in Sweden 10,000 reside outside the detention centres. Children are only detained for the minimum possible time (a maximum of 6 days).

Myth 8 - If We Let Them In, They’ll Take Our Benefits
Fact: A common misconception is that refugees arriving in Australia will ‘steal’ the entitlements of Australians. The reality is that refugees, like migrants, create demand for goods and services, thus stimulating the economy and generating growth and employment. A recent UCLA study has shown that unauthorised immigration boosts the US economy by $800 billion per year.

Myth 9: Australia is second only to Canada in the number of refugees it takes
Fact: This is incorrect. This claim is based on the fact that Australia is one of only eight countries whose immigration program actually specifies an annual quota of refugees and at 12,000 Australia's quota is the second highest on a per capita basis. However, as UNHCR reports indicate, many more than eight countries take refugees and asylum seekers - but unlike Australia they do not set a fixed number.
These are the facts:
• 71 countries accept refugees and asylum seekers in some form or other
• Of the 71 Australia is ranked 32nd ;
• On a per capita basis Australia is ranked 38th, slightly behind Kazakhstan, Guinea, Djibouti and Syria;
• Of the 29 developed countries that accept refugees and asylum seekers Australia is ranked 14th. Per capita, the US takes twice as many refugees as Australia.

Myth 10: The people in the boats are terrorists
Fact: This is incorrect. Just 11 of more than 13,000 people who sought asylum in Australia last year were rejected on 'character grounds'. Only one was regarded as a security risk because of suspected terrorist links. He had come by air, not by boat. Government intelligence briefings concerning the threat of terrorist attacks have not mentioned asylum seekers. There remains no evidence that any asylum seekers currently arriving by boat have any connection to terrorism.
Those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks did not arrive in the United States as Asylum Seekers. They flew first class using valid papers. The people in the boats are fleeing from the terrorism of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Linking the atrocities in the United States with the boat people is akin to blaming the Jews for fleeing Hitler. People fleeing oppression have a right to claim asylum and have those claims assessed.

Myth 11: Refugees should stay in the first country they come to and 'join the queue'
Fact: Australia has not taken a single refugee from the UNHCR in Jakarta - from the so-called 'queue' - for more than three years. This is despite the rhetoric from Australian politicians for asylum seekers to be processed in Indonesia. It should also be noted that the UNHCR centre in Indonesia was set up by Australia with Indonesian support. Refugees cannot stay in Indonesia because Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention. There is no requirement in international law for refugees to seek asylum in the first country they come to. Some developed countries have made this an additional requirement in order to avoid processing claims, leaving the large numbers of asylum seekers in camps in Third World countries. International law requires that asylum seekers should not be penalised according to the way in which they enter a country. Australia's current policy does not accord with this requirement.
Some people have given up on the 'queue' and resorted to coming by boat. 24 of those who recently died when their ship sank off the coast of Indonesia had already been granted refugee status by the UNHCR in Jakarta. Many more had relations in Australia who had been provided with asylum but were not allowed access to their wives and children. Simply, the 'queue' does not work.

Myth 13: Getting tough on refugees does not affect Australia's international reputation
Fact: The Australian Government's stance on boat people has attracted widespread international condemnation. The President of Pakistan recently claimed that he should not be forced to open the border to Afghanistan to allow in refugees because Pakistan already had 2.5 million refugees whilst Australia was turning away a few hundred. The Howard Government's policy represents a change in the Liberal party's position. In 1985 current Minister, Phillip Ruddock criticised the then Labor Government for reducing its intake of refugees from Vietnam. In 1998 the Government rejected Pauline Hanson's call for temporary visas to be given to all refugees. However, the Government later introduced a similar proposal for those arriving without valid papers. Ms Hanson also called for the use of the navy to repel boats coming to Australia in February this year, six months before the Tampa incident.

Myth 14: Australia is a 'soft touch'
Fact: Compared to other nations, Australia takes a hard-line approach to asylum seekers. All people are mandatorily detained. If successful they can only receive a 3-year temporary visa and cannot apply to have their families join them. The current policy has not stopped people coming. Asylum seekers come to Australia because they fear persecution. The numbers reflect the severity of the situation they are fleeing, not the policies of the countries they are fleeing to. The Minister for Immigration recently commented that the drowning deaths of over 350 people trying to get to Australia would not deter others. If such events do not deter people, the costly use of the Australian navy will not deter them either. The number of asylum seekers coming to Australia has increased since the Tampa. The current policy has been extremely costly. So far it is estimated it has cost this year's budget over $140 million in extra funding, bringing the total to $500million.

Myth 15: It is easier to get refugee status in Australia than overseas.
Fact: According to the UNHCR, the total acceptance rate for all asylum seekers in Australia is equivalent to other western countries. The Government has claimed that Australia cannot afford to allow asylum seekers to land in Australia because our court system enables asylum seekers to appeal within our court system and thereby gain easier access to refugee status. In contrast, they claim that only 10-15% of Iraqi asylum seekers are granted refugee status by the UNHCR in the Middle East, and similar results are found in Indonesia. UNHCR figures do not support this. They have approved over 77% of Iraqi asylum seekers processed in Indonesia. This does not include those who gain access through the UNHCR's appeal system.

Myth 16: People who destroy their identification can't be genuine
Fact: Most refugees are not able to travel through conventional channels because they cannot obtain a passport from the government that is persecuting them, or they are fleeing from. Identification documents enable not only Australian immigration officials to determine identity but also representatives of the regime people are fleeing. This places relatives within countries like Afghanistan and Iraq at risk. Moreover, people fleeing from political persecution are at greater risk within their own country if they can be identified when they are on the move.

Myth 17: Asylum seekers are 'ungrateful' and behave badly
Fact: There has been a series of allegations in the media since the Tampa incident concerning the 'behaviour' of asylum seekers. These claims have been continuously proven false. One newspaper reported that the violent activity of asylum seekers on board the Manoora led to a child having their arm broken. Defence Minister Peter Reith denied such reports. The Government has alleged that prior to being picked up by HMAS Adelaide refugees threw their children overboard. The Australian Navy's video of the incident shows that these allegations cannot be substantiated.

Myth 18: Detention centres are better than the countries they have left behind
Fact: The German Government recently condemned detention centres, comparing them to concentration camps. Many asylum seekers have been the victims of persecution in the countries they have fled. For many, Australian detention centres continue their persecution by removing many basic human rights and freedoms including access to families, and to the media. Adequate support services for the most basic of needs are limited. Constant surveillance, musters and other intrusive practices characterise people's daily lives. According to the Head of Psychiatry at Westmead Children's Hospital, a young child confined within a detention centre was recently diagnosed with an extreme form of depression, directly attributable to his confinement. This was not a one-off case. Many cases of severe depression have been reported.

Myth 19: Sending boat people to other countries solves Australia's asylum seeker problem
Fact: Australia pays for the processing of asylum seekers who are intercepted by the navy and then transported to other countries. Total bill for this policy is now $500 million, and rising. In contrast Iran receives $60 million to process over two million refugees. Countries in the Pacific will not continue to accept asylum seekers coming to Australia. In the past Indonesia has accepted people for processing. However many nations, including Australia have refused to accept those who successfully receive refugee status. This has left the vast majority of asylum seekers in Indonesia indefinitely. Many in the Pacific fear the same will happen to them.

This material is the sole property of the Edmund Rice Centre for Justice & Community Education and the School of Education of the Australian Catholic University. Reproduction is not ordinarily permitted without the permission of these organisations, however, an exception has been made for this issue provided that acknowledgment is given.
To purchase copies of this material please contact the Edmund Rice Centre. Ph: 02 9764 1330; Fax: 9764 1743; email: zeena@erc.org.au

-snip-
Great posts there. I'm not expecting to see Lightwolf back anytime soon though...

I'll start by saying sucked in to all you hippy pacifist conspiracy theorists, The liberals won.

Do you always start by denegrating the person and not the argument? Or have you been watching Order in the House for pointers? The Liberals won because, yet again Australia voted with their wallet and not their sense of human decency (Rates and the Medicare Lie). The War in Iraq offered election propaganda that only fueled the collective fear that the Liberals would get Bush to protect us from the Terrorists. As far as the US being a protector goes, I can understand the benefits of having Bush placated than to risk him going on yet another international killing spree, especially if he fabricates some reason about Australia to take to the UN.
The Liberal victory wasn't a demonstration of the better party, but rather the Liberals were the only party left. The wheels had fallen off Latham's leadership, so Howard was the only horse in the race. You can't win when there's no contest. People will choose something over nothing, even when that something is below-par.

Boodicka: I wish I could compare two completely differant occurances from differant periods in time and preach rubbish to people as well as you can. The people responsible of mistreating prisoners have been punished, but I'm thinking we should just behead them like terrorists do to us.


Different how? Because the Japanese are Asian and we're White? Because the Iraqis are Arab and we're White? Because skirts were longer then? Time doesn't change human nature. The Japanese treated prisoners badly. The US is now treating prisoners badly (1). The rules of war were distorted in both situations(2). The photos from Abu-Graib were merely a pictorial taste of the human rights abuse allegations.

Concerning the stolen generation: I can see how John Howard is personally responsible for what happened before he was in power.

He isn't. You can't be responsible for the sins of your ancestors. The issue is that John Howard is a representative of the Australian people today, and today we are aware of the injustices that our ancestors committed. It is our responsibility to recognise and address these injustices instead of making excuses to pacify our consciences.

All I can say is perhaps we should stop taking all children away from parents who abuse their kids.

Both weak and irrelevant. The Aborignal mothers were raising their children in their own culture - a way that differed from our traditional western value system. Issues of hygeine and education appalled White Australia, and made a great excuse for denying these children access to their history and identity, in the name of clean faces and rote scripture. In the White Knows Best paradigm there was no room for a cultural integration that respected Indigenous history.

It is an unfortunate circumstance but many people of the stolen generation have gone on to be grateful for the new life and EDUCATION!!! given to them. But maybe we should just leave them to sort their own problems out.

The Western Education offered to the Stolen Children was advantageous in the respect that it encouraged integration of these children with Whites. Reading, writing and arithmetic are necessary skills for functioning in Western culture. No-one is going to say that educating children is wrong. What is wrong is that these children lost a connection with their culture and their families. Their opportunity to grow into well-adjusted and complete adults was hindered because of the acts of government. That any of those children did survive emotionally is a tribute to their individual strength and courage to make do with their situation.

I wonder how many people understand what life was like under Saddam. His kids were guilty of killing and raping people. A couple of "princes" who were not only above the law but had an army backing them. Iraq is now a mess, but when things are as bad as what Iraq was like it is expected.

Again, irrelevant. I concede that Iraq was no bed of roses under Saddam's dictatorship. That doesn't justify Bush circumventing US law to declare war against another country without congressional approval, or his breach of the United Nations Charter, to which the US is a signee(3). Most warzones _are_ a mess, however, Saddam's disregard for human life is not a justification for Bush's disregard for human life. It seems Saddam has set the standard.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."- John Stuart Mill, In Fear

Nice attempt at sullying John Stuart Mill's good name, but I agree with him. There are things worth fighting and dying for, like freedom, like equality. The laws that Bush and his collaborators broke are the laws that millions have died for, in conflicts like the US Civil War, WW1, and WW2 among others. They are the laws that protect you from unjust wars, from being tortured, from being unjustly imprisoned and unfairly tried. Those laws protect your human rights. The sins of Bush, Blair and Howard are not the 'exertions of better men.' They have discredited the lives of the soldiers who died to protect our freedom, and all for their own political gain.

(1)http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGIOR410242004
(2)http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140562004
(3)http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php

Apologies for length/girth/excessive similes, but your boyfriend loved it.

John Howard: Proof that it isn't just America's fault the world sucks.

Great posts there. I'm not expecting to see Lightwolf back anytime soon though...


I do enjoy proving people wrong. Although I am also willing to admit defeat about the Refugee's. Although I still think detaining people for investigation who come here illegally is not only needed but very important. It is true that the system is in need of more then fixing, look at the woman who was sent to I think Baxter because they thought she was German but just ended up crazy.

Obviously I am pro-war and I confess that I get very angry when people protest and call Bush, Blair and Howard evil when they choose to ignore the crimes Saddam and his dictatorship was responsible for.


Different how? Because the Japanese are Asian and we're White? Because the Iraqis are Arab and we're White? Because skirts were longer then? Time doesn't change human nature. The Japanese treated prisoners badly. The US is now treating prisoners badly (1). The rules of war were distorted in both situations(2). The photos from Abu-Graib were merely a pictorial taste of the human rights abuse allegations.

First off, don't try and make me sound racist. I might be in the KKK or I might be a black, Jewish homosexual, you don't know so please avoid doing that to people in the future.

For starters the Americans abusing soldiers has NOTHING to do with John Howard. Argue all you want but in the end our prime minister has no sway in how to US military gathers information. (Be it morale or immorale.) I say that they are differant because of the times. The world was a differant place then. The prisoners tortured were only suppose to be for information purposes, I do agree with using methods which might save the lives of several soldiers and civilians. -Call me evil, I see it as being realistic. The world is not a perfect place, people die and people kill others i'm sorry that I was the one to have to inform you.

Iraq now is a mess and will be for many years. But I do not see any other way to stop what was happening. Let's face it, Saddam made a mockery of the UN. If the UN actually enforced it's regulations none of this would happen. IMO the world would be great if the UN had the power to make us take refugee's in and put America in it's place but they can't and they don't.

I still think detaining people for investigation who come here illegally is not only needed but very important. It is true that the system is in need of more then fixing, look at the woman who was sent to I think Baxter because they thought she was German but just ended up crazy.

I agree that the system needs to be overhauled. Obviously there are some that need to be detained for security reasons, but IMHO not all need to be detained, just those assessed as a security risk.


Let's face it, Saddam made a mockery of the UN. If the UN actually enforced it's regulations none of this would happen.

Which regulations do you mean? The regulations prohibiting Iraq from devoloping nuclear, biological and chemical WMDs were successful...

Schmucker']ok...and what does any of that have to do with australia...i agree that australia should deal with its own past before delving into the past affairs of others, but how does that relate to Guantanomo Bay in any way, shape or form?

It's tangental, I concede. However, I think that Howard is internationally recognised as a collaborator with the Travelling Bush Circus, so not only is Howard's commentary on Japan's sanitisation of WW2 history very ironic in regards to the stolen generation, but I find it doubley hypocritical that he hasn't challenged Ringmaster Bush over human rights abuses in Abu Graib, Guantanamo and Bagram, yet he thinks he can make a judgement on Japan.

It's a proven fact that Iraq dropped chemical weapons on Kurds in Northern Iraq. Kurdish refugees were murdered by Saddam's regime as well. The UN should however also punish the USA, Australia and Britain for invading a Iraq illegally. (Even though I think it was the right decision.)

I can only hope the UN does take action to "peacefully" stop North Korea making nukes. The problem with the world is that it only takes one rogue nation to destroy it.

It's a proven fact that Iraq dropped chemical weapons on Kurds in Northern Iraq. Kurdish refugees were murdered by Saddam's regime as well...

Yes, but this was before the last Gulf War and before the sanctions...

As for North Korea I think it's too late. I'm sure I heard they have the bomb somewhere... :(

Complain about Howard all you will, but none of the other parties offer decent alternatives.

Labour: Same as the Liberals but with screwy economic policies. They also introduced the mandatory detention system, which the LIBERALs are now EASING.

Greens: Bizzare economic policies, abandoned by the rational world in the 1950s. Seem to like trees.

Democrats: Seem to repeat the phrase, "We are a check on power." Has no actual policies.

Family First: Liberals, but more religously right, with mildly worse economic policies.

Christian Democrats: Very religous right.

Nationals: Liberals that like farms

myth 20, ur gay!
fact u r gay!

and lightwoof, i am on ur side

Farmina, you forgot to add your views on One Nation and the Liberals. Would you care to indulge me?
(I am not implying you support any/either party)

I have to agree, the liberals may not be perfect but it's better than some of the other parties. Labour is exactly the same as liberal, except they hire metal singers and AFL commentators as politicians, oh and they have more regulated Industrial relations. Family First want to burn lesbians and britney spears cd's at the stake, the Democrats say they 'keep the bastards honest' but really there are the annoying minority who blocks senate legislation and don't do anything significant and the Greens want to ban meat eating, put environmental protection above human protection and have an unarmed army.

Perhaps if we merge all the political parties and shot the politicians we would get a decent set of policies at a Federal level. If not, we can shoot the survivors a second time.

Personally I am quite happy with my government on a state (Labour) and local (Liberal) governments.

Perhaps if we merge all the political parties and shot the politicians we would get a decent set of policies at a Federal level. If not, we can shoot the survivors a second time.

Personally I am quite happy with my government on a state (Labour) and local (Liberal) governments.
if anyone needs to be shot it is u, then mayby the greens, all of em. and no more, u oddball

if anyone needs to be shot it is u, then mayby the greens, all of em. and no more, u oddball

me being shot
:p :mp5:

I must say, I am actually a Liberal supporter.

I agree with their economic policies, perhaps even don't think they go far enough. I also believe that they are better on national defence and Howard's new aborignal programs are even good. Some of his health policies I don't like, I wasn't keen on invading Iraq but I believe we should stay there, even if it is just to make it look like its not just American. I don't feel the government should 'say "sorry", because there is a massive loophole in the law that leaves the government open to massive sueing. But I don't support the Liberals on everything, I would like to see some of their refugee reforms continue and I'm opposed to the ban on gay marriage, especially considering it was alreadly illegal. I believe the term to describe me is "small l" Liberal.

As for One Nation, *rolls on floor laughing* sorry, I was told when you don't have anything good to say *starts laughing again* lets just say "One Nation, No Party."

if anyone needs to be shot it is u, then mayby the greens, all of em. and no more, u oddball

Oh just shutup.

Howard does have a point though about how quickly countries forget their past mistakes. However, should they be constantly sorry and feeling guilty for things they the current administration actually had nothing to do with? Just like with the stolen generation, I don't expect Howard to apologise because he didn't do it. I just expect him, along with everyone else, to learn from it and make sure it doesn't happen again. Hell, if I held people accountable for the things that people of their background had been responsible for in the past, I wouldn't be able to walk down the street without having to spit on everyone I saw.

If only the indigenous population of Australia had exercised the immigration controls of the current government. I'm pretty certain Lightfoot wouldn't be there to bitch about "criminals/refugees". :D

*Joke stolen from Keruvalia.

Well I'm not a liberal supporter. In fact I've never been able to stand their policies and have never voted liberal in all my 23 years as an eligable voter :).

However (and I can't believe I'm sticking up for this man) I don't think Howard is a hypocrite for what he said. He's a politician and says whatever he thinks the target group wants to hear. At the moment he's working on better relations with China, so its no surprise he came out on their side in this.

Having said that, I do believe any politician from any party would have said the same thing. Its politics, nothing more, nothing less.

Well you know, he can tell other countries what to do with themselves, but god forbid they tell Australia what to do!

Damn right no one tells australia what to do but it sounds like bushy too tell others to get rid of WMDs but we all know he has them.

nah what about "we should keep this a secret to ourselves" now saying that into a microphone...

And good old Rove McMannus does the bes pay outs of old jonny WOOO GO ROVE LIVE

If only the indigenous population of Australia had exercised the immigration controls of the current government. I'm pretty certain Lightfoot wouldn't be there to bitch about "criminals/refugees". :D

*Joke stolen from Keruvalia.

Hmm just making a correction here. I wasn't bitching as I did not start the thread. I was defending my opinions. Maybe oneday when you get your own opinions (and jokes) you might understand that in order to bitch you have to repeatedly nag about certain points. I guess some people find themselves powerfull by insulting somebody who is in dissagreement with the majority present.

I however have already conceded to defeat on the topic of refugees because any fool would have to agree that the refugees spend to much time in "limbo" locked away and not knowing what their future is.
It's a two party system and I doubt Labour would do things much differantly.

It's a two party system and I doubt Labour would do things much differantly.

id have to agree with lighwolf here. im a disappointed labor voter with the sell-out stance the labor party has taken with so many issues, especially the gay marriage issue.

id like to point out though that the labor party isnt trying to "out lib the libs". labor is meant to be about ensuring that all australians, regardless of their station in life, gets the opportunity to develop and excel at what they want to do. thats what made me decide to vote labor - both parties recognise that privatisation and corporatisation is here to stay, but at least labor wants to help everyone in Australia benefit from these forces, not just the richest.

id have to agree with lighwolf here. im a disappointed labor voter with the sell-out stance the labor party has taken with so many issues, especially the gay marriage issue.

id like to point out though that the labor party isnt trying to "out lib the libs". labor is meant to be about ensuring that all australians, regardless of their station in life, gets the opportunity to develop and excel at what they want to do. thats what made me decide to vote labor - both parties recognise that privatisation and corporatisation is here to stay, but at least labor wants to help everyone in Australia benefit from these forces, not just the richest.

No major party in Australia is going to side in favour of gay marriage, the cumplosury vote and the older population ensures this for the time being.

I don't feel that Labors policy's do help all Australians, even if thats the way they claim.

I feel that removing things like AWAs would increase unemployment, inflation and interest rates, which certainly isn't good for 'all Australians.'

Cutting high tax bands can actually increase tax revenue, as seen when Howard slashed company tax, REDUCING the tax burden on low income families.

Some Liberal policies do hurt the lowest of the low, I admit that, but they have brought huge benefits, and not just to the rich.

Obviously I am pro-war and I confess that I get very angry when people protest and call Bush, Blair and Howard evil when they choose to ignore the crimes Saddam and his dictatorship was responsible for.
I'm interested as to why you're pro-war. What brought you to that standpoint?

I wouldn't say that Bush, Blair and Howard are evil. I'd say that they're manipulative, dishonest and selfish, but I don't thinks they're evil. They're only human, and perhaps they haven't the moral calibre required to lead their nations through these present crises. Then again, perhaps they're the best we can manage to elect at the moment, which is a terrible indictment on us.

I think we're all well aware of what a miserable place Iraq was under Saddam's rule. You can't discuss the Iraq Violation without taking Saddam's despotism into consideration. However, if Bush is to be believed, it was WMD and the (still unfounded) allegation of Al Quaida ties, not Saddam's treatment of his citizens, that was the reason to make war. Saddam's wicked ways were a back-up reason when the WMD theory didn't come to fruition - a post hoc argument to justify an unjustifiable act.

First and foremost, I am anti-war because of what war is, not because of politics. I have met men who fought and saw their mates die, and every one I speak to has told me that in their experience, war is an horrific thing, and should be avoided unless there is no other option.

Secondly, I agree that our involvement in some wars are necessary. We are part of the Commonwealth and were obligated by our nationhood to support Britain in WW1 and WW2. When it comes to protecting our freedom and our rights, I agree that war is necessary. I would fight for that. I am still yet to see evidence that the Violation of Iraq was necessary or justifiable. Bush's evidence was at first doubtful, at last ficticious. I am opposed to this war, but that does not mean that I choose to disregard Saddam's crimes. I think it's a little presumptuous to attribute the anti-war standpoint to shortsightedness, considering how truly unpleasant _any_ war is.

First off, don't try and make me sound racist. I might be in the KKK or I might be a black, Jewish homosexual, you don't know so please avoid doing that to people in the future.
I didn't intend to make you appear racist, but in hindsight it was glib rhetoric, for which I apologise. Times were different, yes, but I think it's egocentric to think that we are any different to our WW2 counterparts. Human flesh was still as yielding to bullets. Torturing and killing captive prisoners was still a breach of the Geneva Convention. The soldiers who fought then were just as individual and real as you and I are right now. The differences you claim between then and now I think are relatively superficial. They are historical differences in culture, but they are not differences which affect our sense of living and dying, or our humanity.

For starters the Americans abusing soldiers has NOTHING to do with John Howard. Argue all you want but in the end our prime minister has no sway in how to US military gathers information.
It's not a question of Howard influencing how the US gathers information. It's a question of Howard's actions being at odds to the style of moral responsibility I like in a leader. Howard is Australia's Prime Minister. His responsibility is to Australia over any other nation. When Bush, via Rumsfeld, endorses the torture of prisoners as appropriate military conduct, Howard is incriminated by association. It's called collaboration. When bad things happen and you don't confront them, you condone them. You might argue that it's not Howard's responsibility to question Bush, but I think it is. Howard has the lives of Australian soldiers and Australia's international reputation to consider. If he's not prepared to meet the responsibility to Australia that his appointment entails, then perhaps he's not the right man for the job.

Call me evil, I see it as being realistic. The world is not a perfect place, people die and people kill others i'm sorry that I was the one to have to inform you.
It would be realistic to accept that murder and torture _do_ occur. It's another thing entirely to condone those acts against specific groups that you arbitrarily consider worthy of it, or to justify the means for the end. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1) and the Geneva Conventions (2) to protect ALL people. That includes you and me. It's easy to disregard them now, when the war is so far away, but who knows what the next 50 years will bring? If we make standards and then disregard them, those standards mean nothing.

Iraq now is a mess and will be for many years. But I do not see any other way to stop what was happening. Let's face it, Saddam made a mockery of the UN. If the UN actually enforced it's regulations none of this would happen. IMO the world would be great if the UN had the power to make us take refugee's in and put America in it's place but they can't and they don't.
It seems any country with enough money can make a mockery of the UN(3). We have these standards of international conduct to protect us, not merely to inconvenience warmongerers. When world leaders break the rules, they must be held accountable.

(1)http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
(2)http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm
(3)http://web.amnesty.org/pages/icc-US_threats-eng

I don't feel that Labors policy's do help all Australians, even if thats the way they claim.

I feel that removing things like AWAs would increase unemployment, inflation and interest rates, which certainly isn't good for 'all Australians.'

Cutting high tax bands can actually increase tax revenue, as seen when Howard slashed company tax, REDUCING the tax burden on low income families.



Why do you think abolishing AWAs will increase unemployment? They undermine Award conditions (which are the minimum set by the Workplace commission). Most AWAs give people MORE money in exchange for less holidays. I don't think AWAs are a positive because it allows companies to undercut people's wages/conditions.

Also, on the subject of taxes, the government/ATO ought to rewrite some tax laws to close loop holes. I know people who have tennis courts and pools at their homes, who get Youth Allowances (because their parents own a company, and they give themselves "minimum wage"). Someone else's mum is an accountant and her son "works" for her (not really though), so she deposits money in his bank account as "wages", then takes it out straight afterwards. This way, he can claim that he works, and is an independent (and so gets Youth Allowances). The system is SO DODGY

I shoud just hand this thread over to Boodicka, since she's doing such a great job. :p :D

A quick note on political parties in Australia:

The two major parties are virtually identical. So you have a choice, conservative or conservative. Nice.

The other parties aren't really worth a mention. The Democrats are a spent political force and the Greens are too nationalistic and narrow focussed. Plus parliamentary democracy is just... not democratic! Then there's One Nation, whose xenophobic policies receive WAY to much support for my liking... Then yeah, you're down to minor minor parties. Oh, except the Nationals, who are basically rural Liberals...

In short, politics in Australia is a horrible swamp, releasing toxic gases...

Edit: I just want to add that creating a two tiered health system is so wrong. Universal health care should be a right. Raise the medicare rebates. Maybe if Australia wasn't spending so much on wars we'd be able to do it...

A quick note on political parties in Australia:

The two major parties are virtually identical. So you have a choice, conservative or conservative. Nice.


I know most people didn't appreciate Mark Latham, but at least when he was Labor leader, Labor was definitely different to the Liberals.

Why do you think abolishing AWAs will increase unemployment? They undermine Award conditions (which are the minimum set by the Workplace commission). Most AWAs give people MORE money in exchange for less holidays. I don't think AWAs are a positive because it allows companies to undercut people's wages/conditions.

Also, on the subject of taxes, the government/ATO ought to rewrite some tax laws to close loop holes. I know people who have tennis courts and pools at their homes, who get Youth Allowances (because their parents own a company, and they give themselves "minimum wage"). Someone else's mum is an accountant and her son "works" for her (not really though), so she deposits money in his bank account as "wages", then takes it out straight afterwards. This way, he can claim that he works, and is an independent (and so gets Youth Allowances). The system is SO DODGY
Start at the end: the system is always dodgy.

Second: AWAs increase flexibility. For example there are no cleaners who fitted under the award relating to cleaners. Also, although AWAs can lower conditions, data shows that AWAs have increased the working conditions of many people (although mainly middle class). To get to your question, lower nominal wages increase the profitability of labour and hence employment. Some fields of Australian labour were priced out of the market. Evidence: unemployment rate=5.1% lowest in a generation.

Start at the end: the system is always dodgy.

Second: AWAs increase flexibility. For example there are no cleaners who fitted under the award relating to cleaners. Also, although AWAs can lower conditions, data shows that AWAs have increased the working conditions of many people (although mainly middle class). To get to your question, lower nominal wages increase the profitability of labour and hence employment. Some fields of Australian labour were priced out of the market. Evidence: unemployment rate=5.1% lowest in a generation.

I think clearners do fit under an award. During the Olympics, I worked as a House Keeper, and we were working above award conditions (yay!). But everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'll agree to disagree :)

Although, I don't think the unemployment rate factor plays much into it though. Like they always say, most jobs created are casual jobs. And anyway, Gough Whitlam precided over an unemployment rate of 2%.

I think clearners do fit under an award. During the Olympics, I worked as a House Keeper, and we were working above award conditions (yay!). But everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I'll agree to disagree :)

Although, I don't think the unemployment rate factor plays much into it though. Like they always say, most jobs created are casual jobs. And anyway, Gough Whitlam precided over an unemployment rate of 2%.

Whitlam created jobs by inflating the economy. Translation: short term decrease in unemployment, long term increase in inflation.

Casual jobs are better than no jobs. Also in the last couple of years it has been shifting to full time. The thing is that casual workers were what were needed when the economy restructured itself, and the awards made that difficult.

I didn't make myself clear when I was refering to the cleaner's award. What I was saying were the terms were (I don't know if they still are) not suited to most cleaners, but it was good for most union cleaners. Especially the clause relating to "9-5" which really inappropiate for cleaning work.

To take this to a philosophical level, I believe if two parties consent to something, should the government have the right to set a different standard?

He should be called FTA Johnny considering we now have an FTA with Singapore, Thailand and the USA. He wants one with Malaysia, China and Japan now! I can't wait for an FTA with the Vatican State.

For those of us who are ignorant of Australian internal politics, what is the "Stolen Generation"? Just curious

Up until the 1970s, it was an established legal practice in Australia for the authorities to forcefully remove Aboriginal children who were of mixed ethnicity - i.e., part-White - from their parents. Those children were then sent to be brought up by Whites, to be assimilated into White Australian culture. Their own cultural heritage was denied them. They were not allowed to see their family again. Their only "crime" was being born. The purpose, which the authorities explictly stated, was that eventually the Indigenous people should die out, and that children of mixed ethnicity ("half-castes", as they were called) should be made to marry Whites so that, generation after generation, their Indigenous blood should be diluted and eventually vanish. It was a form of cultural genocide, which left horrendous psychological scars on thousands and thousands of people. Many Aboriginals today don't know who their real parents were, and don't even know where they come from, what their cultural roots are. In Aboriginal cultures, the land you come from is extremely important, it's the basis of everything, so if you don't know what your land, your country is (for Aboriginals, there are many different Indigenous countries inside Australia), then there's a huge void in your own identity. It was a brutal and extremely effective policy to wipe out Aboriginals, physically and culturally.

Good thread, Preebles, by the way.

It is an unfortunate circumstance but many people of the stolen generation have gone on to be grateful for the new life and EDUCATION!!! given to them.

You're joking, I hope.

They were torn from their family, their parenys, their culture, for no reason. How would you like to be wrenched from your parents as a child, and transplanted into a culture completely alien to your own, and forced to adapt - and through methods of assimilation that were often violent, at that?

They already had a life and an education, amongst their own people, people who cared for them much more than their White kidnappers ever did. Or are you implying that Aboriginals could not educate their own children, in the ways that were culturally meaningful to them as a people? Who the hell are you to say it was legitimate to go onto their own land and deny them their heritage, to impose upon them a Western education instead? The Indigenous peoples of Australia managed perfectly well on their own for thousands and thousands of years before the British invasion. They maintained their own ways and customs that not only kept them alive, but gave them a rich and fascinating culture. They educated their children in their own way, and, I might add, their education enabled them to have societies without the violence and misery that plague our own. Perhaps they got it a little more right than we have, hmm?

You're joking, I hope.

They were torn from their family, their parenys, their culture, for no reason. How would you like to be wrenched from your parents as a child, and transplanted into a culture completely alien to your own, and forced to adapt - and through methods of assimilation that were often violent, at that?

They already had a life and an education, amongst their own people, people who cared for them much more than their White kidnappers ever did. Or are you implying that Aboriginals could not educate their own children, in the ways that were culturally meaningful to them as a people? Who the hell are you to say it was legitimate to go onto their own land and deny them their heritage, to impose upon them a Western education instead? The Indigenous peoples of Australia managed perfectly well on their own for thousands and thousands of years before the British invasion. They maintained their own ways and customs that not only kept them alive, but gave them a rich and fascinating culture. They educated their children in their own way, and, I might add, their education enabled them to have societies without the violence and misery that plague our own. Perhaps they got it a little more right than we have, hmm?


Oh, I missed that part in Lightwolf's posts. That's a disgustingly paternalistic attitude; one much like the ones that led to more children being taken. "Their parents can't take care of them" etc.

There was a doco on... SBS I think about this agency that works to reunite stolen children with their families. It was so sad to see what the policy did to families. The children left behind were just as affected as the stolen ones. :(

Good thread, Preebles, by the way.
Thanks mate.

Can anyone here understand why when you pre-pay your business income tax, if you pay once (annually) it is not indexed but if you pay quarterly it is indexed for economic growth?

God our tax system is weird.

In response to the situation that has arisen with China accusing Japan of glossing over atrocities committed during WW2 in textbooks, Aussie PM John Howard has stated that "all nations should be frank about their past..."

What a hypocrite.
Yeah I know, I mean we're talking about Australia here.

We need a fucking coup. Now. Before he gets senate control.

*sigh*

Great posts there.
Thanks, same to you, great thread :).

You seem to ignore what motivated the whole stolen generation.
The motivation is simple, Ariddia already stated it clearly:
The purpose, which the authorities explictly stated, was that eventually the Indigenous people should die out, and that children of mixed ethnicity ("half-castes", as they were called) should be made to marry Whites so that, generation after generation, their Indigenous blood should be diluted and eventually vanish.

Even if it was to ‘protect’ the children and ‘civilise’ them, what right did the authorities have to decide what ‘civilisation’ is? Aboriginal culture worked for the Aboriginals. Things couldn’t have been done better because there was no need to take the children in the first place! I think you hold a very superior attitude.

My main disagreement with this topic is the fact you and many people seem to think it is John Howard's fault this occured. (As the thread is labelled anti J.H)
I can’t speak for the others, but I’m under the impression that no body here claims the Stolen generation was John Howard’s fault (it would be idiotic to). Rather, he is a hypocrite for criticising the Japanese government for covering shameful aspects of their past, considering Australia hasn’t yet fully accepted certain shameful aspects of our past (and present).

When you give your house and belongings to an aboriginal you can say that you are not a hypocrit. - Seriously I do understand your view and I know that you wouldn't have your views if you didn't actually care about the Aboriginal people.

All I can say is I don't care what a persons culture is, if they are living in inhumane conditions they should be carted off to a foster family to aviod the it all happening again to the next generation. However, the children should have been taught to embrace their heritage. A person does need to know where they came from to know who they are.

"Nothing changes because it's all the same, the world you get is the one you give away. It all just happens again way down the line."

When you give your house and belongings to an aboriginal you can say that you are not a hypocrit. - Seriously I do understand your view and I know that you wouldn't have your views if you didn't actually care about the Aboriginal people.
Rrright. I'm guessin this comes from a confused view of landrights? I would love to work in an indigenous community when I'm a doctor. There. I do care.

All I can say is I don't care what a persons culture is, if they are living in inhumane conditions they should be carted off to a foster family to aviod the it all happening again to the next generation. However, the children should have been taught to embrace their heritage. A person does need to know where they came from to know who they are.
Um, get this into your head. The children were taken with the aim of genocide (read some Henry Reynolds by the way). There was NO altruism in the government policy. Sure, some of the missions may have felt they had the childrens interests at heart, but in essence they were misquided, paternalistic notions. I mean, until the 60's Indigenous people were wards of the state. That tells you a lot about the state of mind at the time.

Besides which, so many of these children were institutionalised. There are reports of physical and emotional abuse, starvation. Then there's the issue of wages owed to indigenous people by the state.

You cannot seriously believe that the state really cared for indigenous people...

jesus christ china has its dick stuck up australia's ass... I remember when Chinese president Hu Jintao visited australia, the australian govt completely censored all critics and protestors who tried to heckle Hu but when gw bush visited there was no holds barred. And now howard is on red china's side once again.

jesus christ china has its dick stuck up australia's ass... I remember when Chinese president Hu Jintao visited australia, the australian govt completely censored all critics and protestors who tried to heckle Hu but when gw bush visited there was no holds barred. And now howard is on red china's side once again.
This wouldn't be because China is one of Australia's largests trading partners would it? Of course not :rolleyes:

This wouldn't be because China is one of Australia's largests trading partners would it? Of course not :rolleyes:
Besides which, John Howard is even more up GW's arse. Trust me, they found him up there when GW had his colonoscopy...

And China is hardly "red" anymore. :rolleyes:

This wouldn't be because China is one of Australia's largests trading partners would it? Of course not :rolleyes:
Yeah it's sad how China holds everyone hostage economically... the US will let China take over Taiwan simply because Americans cant afford to lose trade with China

Besides which, John Howard is even more up GW's arse. Trust me, they found him up there when GW had his colonoscopy...
haha, here comes the man-train!!

And China is hardly "red" anymore. :rolleyes:

I know, even the US is more socialist than China, but Mao's party is still going on, and Chinese people still sing "The East is Red," and in this world of hypocrisy the Chinese Communist Party has some of the more deplorable crimes to account for before getting involved in the Japanese textbook mess.

Yeah it's sad how China holds everyone hostage economically... the US will let China take over Taiwan simply because Americans cant afford to lose trade with China
It's kinda ironic that the U.S has caused that problem by getting rid of communism and promoting capitalism in China.

It's kinda ironic that the U.S has caused that problem by getting rid of communism and promoting capitalism in China.
Indeed, and it isn't ironic that Nixon made an ass of himself once again by opening China up... nowadays we can only hope that once China has been put on a track to economic freedom the people will demand more political freedoms. And hopefully democratc reform in the mainland comes before any hypothetical reunification with Taiwan.

We need a fucking coup. Now. Before he gets senate control.

*sigh*

Well we can't do it this weekend because of ANZAC day, nor next weekend as it would take up another long weekend (May day on Monday). Ahh, she'll be right...

Well we can't do it this weekend because of ANZAC day, nor next weekend as it would take up another long weekend (May day on Monday). Ahh, she'll be right...
lol

Bloody Australian slackness! :p May Day isn't a long weekend though, is it? Australia wouldn't dare celebrate Labour Day on May 1... That's a little too... red... :D

lol

Bloody Australian slackness! :p May Day isn't a long weekend though, is it? Australia wouldn't dare celebrate Labour Day on May 1... That's a little too... red... :D

I don't get May Day off, so it's a perfect day to skip uni and have the revolution. Hee. May Day coup, how appropriate ^_^

In response to the situation that has arisen with China accusing Japan of glossing over atrocities committed during WW2 in textbooks, Aussie PM John Howard has stated that "all nations should be frank about their past..."

This is the man who refuses to fully acknowledge atrocities against Indigenous people? Refuses to acknowledge a Stolen Generation?

What a hypocrite.

Australia doesn't have a very good human rights record. Added to the Stolen Generation BS, we have the arbitary detention policies for asylum seekers, and Australia is the only nation to have "succesfully" committed Genocide by completely Obliterating the Tasmanian Aboriginal Population.

I don't get May Day off, so it's a perfect day to skip uni and have the revolution. Hee. May Day coup, how appropriate ^_^
Yay! I'm so there. I'm hosting the revolutionary afterparty at my place. Dress code: Red and black. And bring beer!

Yay! I'm so there. I'm hosting the revolutionary afterparty at my place. Dress code: Red and black. And bring beer!

Woohoo! I'm there! :D

The Taiwan issue is going to be a pain as we are part of the ANZUS treaty, we'll be obligated to help the US should the "worst" happen.

I noticed the Japanese were really keen about a FTA, not.

*Hands shake heavily - resisting urge to flame certain people*

Yes, it's against my nature to flame, so I'm not going to do it at this point in time. However I will say I've got a tough choice in the next election. Hmmmm, Democrats or Greens?

*Hands shake heavily - resisting urge to flame certain people*

Yes, it's against my nature to flame, so I'm not going to do it at this point in time. However I will say I've got a tough choice in the next election. Hmmmm, Democrats or Greens?
Heh. I don't agree with either of them either, but because they have no chance, I guess it's safe to give them a vote.

I should run for PM.

Unless your running under the Libertarian party banner, I think I'll stick with the Liberals.

WE are the masters of death
We never lost a war (US lost Vietnam)
We are the most feared soldiers in history (Ask the germans and North Vietnamese soldiers)

Seriously through, the stolen generation policy does make sense when you consider that this was around the same time as the White Australia policy.
Fortunately both policies have been rendered obsolete and void.
Besides the racial elements of the policy, it's similar to the D.O.H.S. taking children and having foster care or State Wards. Back in the 60's and even today the is an incredible difference in oppurtunities, services, crime etc.

Besides, the manner Australians have treated the Aborginals is no worse than the Americans' treatment of the Indians and Blacks. How many tribes got wiped out? I have never heard of slaves in Australia
Also the British throne (Governor of Tasmania) and Vatican (Church supported the killing of Aborginals) are equally involved in the genocide, which while incredibly depressing and one of the great tradegies of human history, is in the past.

We as australians must take a stronger stance globallly in world affairs, or groups that operate in the present will be join us in the unfortunate achievement of genocide

I have never heard of slaves in Australia

They were called Kanackers (Sp?). They were Pacific Islanders abducted from the region and sent to sugar cane plantations in Queensland.

They were called Kanackers (Sp?). They were Pacific Islanders abducted from the region and sent to sugar cane plantations in Queensland.
Kanakas. :)

So, lemme get this straight --- This man advocated the abduction of Aboriginal children, and continues to support the mistreatment of refugees?

If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me that this man should be held for crimes against humanity.

So, lemme get this straight --- This man advocated the abduction of Aboriginal children, and continues to support the mistreatment of refugees?

If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me that this man should be held for crimes against humanity.
Well, the stolen generation was somewhat before his time, but he does advocate a loss of representation and self government by Indigenous people. For example, his administration was behind the demise of ATSIC (The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) which was the representative boy for these communities. It has been replaced with some body where the members are nominated by the government. Real representative there...

He also refuses to acknowledge the stolen generation or express any regret at the mistreatment of Indigenous people.

And yes, he does support the mistreatment of refugees. He also denies any knowledge of US "rendition" of prisoners, including Australians, who claim to have been tortured.

What a fucking rotter.

This is exactly what I thought when I heard about those comments.

I knew Howard was a lying two-faced hypocritical bastard, but I thought he was good enough at being all of those things to avoid such obvious contradictions as this.

Seriously, his entire policy towards Indigenous Australians has been "I didn't do it, I don't know anything about it, and by the way, INTEREST RATES!", so how could he be stupid enough to call out the Japanese for not acknowledging the darker elements of their past?

Moron.

Australia doesn't have a very good human rights record. Added to the Stolen Generation BS, we have the arbitary detention policies for asylum seekers, and Australia is the only nation to have "succesfully" committed Genocide by completely Obliterating the Tasmanian Aboriginal Population.


True but we are not covering up or altering this, we are not saying anything. The Japanese are openly denying known and proven facts, where as we are not denying it, we just don't shout it out.
Besides, our offenses other than the genocide, are not as severe as the Japanese. Besides, the genocide was carried out over 100 years ago and was supported by the British and Vatican (Governor of Tasmania and Church)
The Stolen Generationpolicy had good intentions at the start, but was poorly executed, openly racist and had traumatic results.
Our refugee policies are unfortunately a nessecary evil.
If our borders were open, how long would it take for al-qaida to release an execute a 9/11 or 3/11 style attack?

While the refugee policy should be altered, we do not flog people, stone people for adultery like countr\ies with Islamic Law
Execute people like aprroxiamately half the world including the US, most Islamic Law countries, Asian, African and South American countries.
We do not make all children after the first adopted out, aborted or killed like china under the One Child policy
We do not allow torture like most countries, including US forces.
We do not outlaw opposition parties(Many african nations) or homosexuality (Fiji etc.), stage military coups (Burma), outlaw foriegners from driving (Nth Korea) try to absorb other countries (China), or have nuclear weapons, despite having 40% of the total world uraninum.
So while we have our problems, we are still better in this regard than so many nations it is depressing.

ATSIC was useless
Check out these stories on ATSIC
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/29/1023864659808.html
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays/essay_4.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking-News/Clark-holds-onto-ATSIC-assets/2005/03/09/1110316083946.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1077387.htm

This is exactly what I thought when I heard about those comments.

I knew Howard was a lying two-faced hypocritical bastard, but I thought he was good enough at being all of those things to avoid such obvious contradictions as this.

Seriously, his entire policy towards Indigenous Australians has been "I didn't do it, I don't know anything about it, and by the way, INTEREST RATES!", so how could he be stupid enough to call out the Japanese for not acknowledging the darker elements of their past?

Moron.

John Howard has admitted the atrocities in Australia's past, but he refuses to say 'sorry' because it has an element of culpability.

The genocide was carried out over 100 years ago and was supported by the British and Vatican (Governor of Tasmania and Church)

The last major slaughter of aborigionals was shortly after the first world war, so not quite 90 years yet.

If our borders were open, how long would it take for al-qaida to release an execute a 9/11 or 3/11 style attack?

I think almost no one wants to have open borders, but mandatory detention is a bit too much. Rather than keep these people locked up for so long why not just lock up those who pose a security risk and give the others more freedom. Of course you will want to keep them close, so some restrictions will still apply. As for a 9/11 attack you may not remember but none of the terrorists were on a leaky boat, they all arrived legally by air with identification.

I think almost no one wants to have open borders, but mandatory detention is a bit too much. Rather than keep these people locked up for so long why not just lock up those who pose a security risk and give the others more freedom.

Yeah. I can't see how imprisoning children (some born in detention, and have been there for all of their lives) is really helping anything. Furthermore, detainees are expected to work 10 hours a day for $5-20 a day, then expected to buy their own clothing. The detainees even cook their own food in many cases. The company running the centres has a nice racket going - saving on costs by utilising inmate labour, *and* being the sole source of goods supply, making a profit there as well.

Yes, I do have a source for all that, but no, I can't be bothered getting it right now unless someone really wants it.

Yeah. I can't see how imprisoning children (some born in detention, and have been there for all of their lives) is really helping anything. Furthermore, detainees are expected to work 10 hours a day for $5-20 a day, then expected to buy their own clothing. The detainees even cook their own food in many cases. The company running the centres has a nice racket going - saving on costs by utilising inmate labour, *and* being the sole source of goods supply, making a profit there as well.

Yes, I do have a source for all that, but no, I can't be bothered getting it right now unless someone really wants it.

:( Mmm... Exploitation. Yay.

I'll start by saying sucked in to all you hippy pacifist conspiracy theorists, The liberals won.

Boodicka: I wish I could compare two completely differant occurances from differant periods in time and preach rubbish to people as well as you can. The people responsible of mistreating prisoners have been punished, but I'm thinking we should just behead them like terrorists do to us.

Concerning the stolen generation: I can see how John Howard is personally responsible for what happened before he was in power. All I can say is perhaps we should stop taking all children away from parents who abuse their kids. It is an unfortunate circumstance but many people of the stolen generation have gone on to be grateful for the new life and EDUCATION!!! given to them. But maybe we should just leave them to sort their own problems out.

I wonder how many people understand what life was like under Saddam. His kids were guilty of killing and raping people. A couple of "princes" who were not only above the law but had an army backing them. Iraq is now a mess, but when things are as bad as what Iraq was like it is expected.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stuart Mill, In Fear


You are, respectfully, extending the argument beyond its logical parameters. That is not the point of the thread; it was clear from the original post.

The idea is not that Howard's sentiments are misguided; it's that he is not willing to adhere to the same policies he would impose on others. Can this really be denied? With any intellectual integrity, that is.

Yes, things were bad for many Iraqis under Saddam. It is likewise true that his sons benefitted greatly from the government's unwilligness to address their crimes against those Iraqis they tortured, raped or otherwise violated. Many Iraqis, however, feel that "The Devil You Know Is Better Than The One You Don't," in so far as this applies to the imposition of Western influence and culture in their country.

And it would help to maintain a bit of historical reference here. You do know that the U.S. helped establish and back Saddam's government, yes? Think of the U.S. support for Iraq and our fight to weaken Iran. The issue becomes much clearer? We can hardly complain about the depth of Saddam's absolute power over the Iraqis when we---and many other Western powers---helped forge that power through military and economic aid. If present circumstances are any indication, you ultimately reap what you sow. We are simply fixing a problem we helped create. Stop the flag waving, already.

Finally, as to the "re-education" program initiated by the Austrailian government against the indigenous peoples, I am quite sure that they would have preferred being given the option of accepting this "gift." Your argument smacks of the same specious and bankrupt logic used to justify American slavery and European genocide against the Jewish people----the typical, and horrible, "Yes it was bad, but look at them now!" historical transmorgrification of reasoning the oppressive class.

Howard may not have personally taken part, but he certainly is reaping the socio-political benefits of this event. Think of it this way:

A man goes across town and breaks into someone's home. Unable to locate the children hiding in the cellar, he kills the adults and steals all the valuables from the home.

The man then returns to his own home, and takes half of his booty and places it in hiding; using other other half to improve his family's situation. The man dies, and his son--knowing where the booty came from---uses the remaining half to invest and further improve his family's situation. And so on.

Meanwhile, the children of the slain adults become destitute, as do their children.

Does the son who knowingly benefitted from his father's crime bear any responsibility to the children of the slain adults? What about the grandson, who also knows of the "family crime?"

Yeah. I can't see how imprisoning children (some born in detention, and have been there for all of their lives) is really helping anything. Furthermore, detainees are expected to work 10 hours a day for $5-20 a day, then expected to buy their own clothing. The detainees even cook their own food in many cases. The company running the centres has a nice racket going - saving on costs by utilising inmate labour, *and* being the sole source of goods supply, making a profit there as well.

Yes, I do have a source for all that, but no, I can't be bothered getting it right now unless someone really wants it.

I agree with the government (Gasp!) that they should buy their own clothing because it is somewhat inappropiate for us to tell them what to wear.

I also agree (Shock!) that they should cook their own food, it is inappropiate for us to tell them what they can and cannot eat and when they are released into the community cooking is a valuble skill for them to have.

What's more I agree with giving them jobs. It helps to eliminate their boredom, it makes them feel as if they have accomplished something and it allows them to gain new skills to utilise in the workplace when they do join society.

What I don't agree with is them being paid less than the minimum wage. They should be paid a minimum wage and apply for a temporary tax file number so they are not taxed at 48% for not having a tax file number.

I agree with the government (Gasp!) that they should buy their own clothing because it is somewhat inappropiate for us to tell them what to wear.

Fair enough. But should the company imprisoning them have a monopoly on clothes distribution, and make a profit back? There's no reason why the government cannot supply clothes for free. Clothing is a basic human need, and a right at that.

I also agree (Shock!) that they should cook their own food, it is inappropiate for us to tell them what they can and cannot eat and when they are released into the community cooking is a valuble skill for them to have.

Certainly. If they are willing, then by all means let them do it. I should reiterate; it's not so much the fact that they are working (many are willing) it's the fact that the company cuts costs by employing detainees upon wages equivalent to around $40 a week rather than hire professional cleaners and cooks. It's exploitation, because they want a profit margin. In essence, it amounts to slavery.

What's more I agree with giving them jobs. It helps to eliminate their boredom, it makes them feel as if they have accomplished something and it allows them to gain new skills to utilise in the workplace when they do join society.

Yes, I agree there, but the jobs should be focused upon building up skills that will help them in the workforce if they are ever released, enable them to make a personal profit, (eg. the construction of handicrafts), or benefit the detainee community as a whole (building childrens playgrounds, etc.). Using these people as virtually slave labour to increase profit margins is extremely immoral. (Cleaning toilets for $5 a day would look good on their resumes, i'm sure.)

What I don't agree with is them being paid less than the minimum wage. They should be paid a minimum wage and apply for a temporary tax file number so they are not taxed at 48% for not having a tax file number.

They aren't taxed, as far as I know. They aren't citizens, so they aren't entitled to any minimum wage whatsoever. They can't apply for a TFN 'cause they don't have visas even if they were taxed, either. The company could probably force them to work for nothing within the context of Australian law (not a law student, though), except for the fact that it would legally amount to slavery and piss off the UN a bit too much. They're lucky to get what they earn now. :(

If we're talking about asylum seekers who are released on temporary protection visa's, as far as I am aware they are not permitted to work. Upon visiting the Asylum Seeker Centre (which caters for asylum seekers once they are released) we were told that asylum seekers are released from the detention centres with no help from the government. In many instances they are dropped off in a public place like a shopping centre, only with what they have (basic essentials). This is why places like the Asylum Seeker Centre exist, to cater for their basic needs because the government fails miserably here (which is no surprise, although the government does cater well for refugees - who have come to Australia via UN processes).

Edit: Good luck making sense of the above. It's bed time for me I think *yawn*.

If we're talking about asylum seekers who are released on temporary protection visa's, as far as I am aware they are not permitted to work. Upon visiting the Asylum Seeker Centre (which caters for asylum seekers once they are released) we were told that asylum seekers are released from the detention centres with no help from the government. In many instances they are dropped off in a public place like a shopping centre, only with what they have (basic essentials). This is why places like the Asylum Seeker Centre exist, to cater for their basic needs because the government fails miserably here (which is no surprise, although the government does cater well for refugees - who have come to Australia via UN processes).

Edit: Good luck making sense of the above. It's bed time for me I think *yawn*.

I'm talking about Asylum seekers that are still in detention.