Hayfever said:
Interesting. Over the week my initial concerns have waned as I have warmed to the positive effect the apology seems to have had.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
SORRY-A 5 letter word thats made history
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
Interesting. Over the week my initial concerns have waned as I have warmed to the positive effect the apology seems to have had.
Hayfever said:
antman said:
Also interesting is that in todays Herald-Sun, nearly 93% of 5,000 people surveyed were AGAINST the State Government setting up a compo fund for the so-called 'stolen generations'.
It seems we must have a lot of naive people then who had some idea that it was great to say 'sorry' but we don't want to hand them compo after we have said 'sorry'.... :don't know
However, it is a shame that this is what the 'sorry' claim was all about from the start....and why we are seeing 40-50 Aborigines already getting their cases ready for legal proceedings to begin.
If their evidence was as strong as people make out, then that surely would have been sufficient enough for them to go for compo well before now, and well before Rudd admitted 'sorry'.
But of course, thats me being a red-neck, negative, racist and not showing empathy, right? :-\
Disco08 said:
But why are they going through the courts NOW?
Before 'sorry' they had flimsy evidence that they knew wouldn't hold up in court (hence why they hounded the Government for an official 'sorry'.)
Now they still gave their flimsy evidence but ALSO a 'sorry' from the Government....so they have the leverage needed to go for compo now.
Sorry words 'give hope for compo'
February 12, 2008 06:16pm
AN indigenous lobby group believes the wording of federal parliament's apology to the stolen generations leaves the door open for compensation.
Michael Mansell, a spokesman for the National Aboriginal Alliance, said his group believed the words used by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in the text revealed to parliament late this afternoon may indicate that he is open to the possibility of compensation but does not want to spell it out yet.
"The fact that the prime minister put in the text that Australia must right the wrongs of the past indicates that action will be taken,'' Mr Mansell told reporters.
"The fact that these words were used in the text does indicate that the door is open for negotiations and we think there is a real possibility that compensation could come after negotiations, during the passage of this year.''
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23202983-5001028,00.html
Before 'sorry' there was no door open for compensation...now the door is wide open....and why we all of a sudden have an influx of people ready to go down the legal path.
Hayfever said:
Last time I heard, Nauru was a place for ILLEGAL immigrants....and Guantanamo was a place for an Australian who decided to go and fight with a group, aligned with a terrorist organisation that was fighting (and has killed) citizens of this country.
Haven't heard of Aborigines being denied access to the court system before...so I'll take your comment as the tongue firmly planted in the cheek jibe, that I'm sure it was.
It was Livers but the same political mob never had in their hearts to care for genuine refugees or the disadvantaged. You and I are fortunate not to be in their shoes. Imagine being one of those kids who were "thrown" overboard? No thanks!Liverpool said:Last time I heard, Nauru was a place for ILLEGAL immigrants....and Guantanamo was a place for an Australian who decided to go and fight with a group, aligned with a terrorist organisation that was fighting (and has killed) citizens of this country.
Haven't heard of Aborigines being denied access to the court system before...so I'll take your comment as the tongue firmly planted in the cheek jibe, that I'm sure it was.
Disco08 said:
No...that's why we haven't seen any victories in the past and why we didn't see a multitude of cases come forward.
But now they feel they have their "confession" as well so... :-\
And don't worry Disco...I remember that post of yours stating that the stolen generation weren't after compo and that we hadn't seen an influx of legal cases because these people were in poverty, etc.
It seems they have turned it around rather quickly, wouldn't you say?
Hayfever said:
Hayfever,
AAAHHH!
This is the part that separates most of my arguments with yourself, Disco, etc.
I think this journo (see article below) calls it "post modernism"...but I call is 'the naive and the gullible'.
Just because someone is deemed 'disadvantaged' doesn't mean we throw everything (facts, evidence, proof) out the window because we should feel sorry for someone. That isn't lack of care, empathy, compassion, or being mean-spirited. It is separating people who are genuine and have genuine complaints from people who are trying to take advantage of a situation.
Post-modernism holds that nothing can be known for certain, that anything is valid if enough people need to believe it.
Post-modernism does not do history, it does 'histories". Writers don't have to verify what they are told, they are saluted for enabling the downtrodden to tell their stories.
But authors of the stolen generations seem to have generously egged the pudding. Witnesses in the Northern Territory case could not confirm some of the lurid tales publications attributed to them.
When post-modern social propagandists use terms like "stolen" most people take them literally. Feature writers, documentary makers and film directors read polemical studies of "stolen generations" and imagine G-men in fedoras descending on remote communities.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501801&objectid=10492750&pnum=0
Liverpool said:
No, of course not. What you are seeing is a couple of lawyers using the wording of the apology to try and negotiate compensation for the people being apologised to based on precedent.
You've got a terrible memory too. I gave you a range of reasons, from personal to logistical that explained why we've only seen a couple of stolen generation cases to date. While this government's actions may or may not provide a launching pad for more claims that process was seemingly underway already thanks to the precedent set by the Trevorrow case.
Hayfever said:
If you're talking about Hicks on this one.....fully deserved, in my opinion.
Hicks is an adult and made CHOICES in his life and he paid the penalty for those choices.
And it seems successful as I don't see him getting involved with Al-Qaeda/Taliban again.
So it seems like his "rehabilitation" worked and if only the judicial system here sent a few similar sentences down, like the blokes who raped the Aboriginal girl and got off with a slap on the wrist, we mightn't have some of the disgraceful abuse cases emanating from these communities either.
Disco08 said:
Like i stated....they have the leverage now.
No 'sorry' meant nothing to negotiate with.
Disco08 said:
And all of a sudden those 'range of reasons' have disappeared since 'sorry' as we now have 40-50 people ready to rock'n'roll for compo.
Funny that...
Liv your missing one major point on this whole apology issue.
Just because I admit I stole peoples cars doesn't mean I can be punished for stealing YOUR car. You still need to prove to a reasonable level that I actually stole your car.
It will be the same for the Stolen Generation. Those that don't have the evidence to prove they were Stolen will not be victorious in any legal challenges. Why do you think the lobby groups were so desperate for the compensation fund to be established?
With only one case successful to date, I'm not expecting the flood to start any time soon.
Just because I admit I stole peoples cars doesn't mean I can be punished for stealing YOUR car. You still need to prove to a reasonable level that I actually stole your car.
It will be the same for the Stolen Generation. Those that don't have the evidence to prove they were Stolen will not be victorious in any legal challenges. Why do you think the lobby groups were so desperate for the compensation fund to be established?
With only one case successful to date, I'm not expecting the flood to start any time soon.
Liverpool said:
Obviously the defendant admitting guilt does take some of the complication away. These people still need to prove that their lives suffered due to the policies the government has apologised for so I don't see what your problem is. They are after all only exercising their rights as any other Australian is entitled to do. Isn't that what you want to see, people treated equally?
Liverpool said:
Not true at all.
Tiger74 said:
Tiger74,
If their evidence is flimsy and I assume they would need this evidence to benefit from a compo fund.....then that doesn't make sense why they would lobby for a compo fund.
So obviously the "sorry" apology had to have some weight for them to have access to a compo fund.
Then why wouldn't this evidence and 'sorry' carry the same weight in a court of law for individual compo cases, as it would for them to have access to money in a compo fund?
Disco08 said:
I just find it funny that they choose to exercise their rights AFTER the Government say 'sorry', thats all.
And while I do want people to be treated equally, I equally don't like fraudulent claims winning lump sums of tax-payers money.
Let's just say that the so-called 'stolen generation' have played the best hand of poker in Australian history with this.
Disco08 said:
Of course it's true Disco.
No sorry meant no wording to look over, nothing to negotiate with, and hence why we didn't see 40-50 compo claims PRIOR to 'sorry'.
If that was true then the initial trial case would never have been heard. Nor would Bruce Trevorrow's.
Rubbish. The vast majority of the people effected have done nothing but try and move on with their lives.
And lol again at you thinking fraudulent claims are going to be successful.
Liverpool said:
Rubbish. The vast majority of the people effected have done nothing but try and move on with their lives.
And lol again at you thinking fraudulent claims are going to be successful.
Disco08 said:
Funny that Bruce Trevorrow had EVIDENCE and didn't need to wait for an apology to gain the compensation he deserved....unlike all the 'stolen generation' compo-seekers.
(Also funny that the 'stolen generation' supporters keep using Trevorrow as their "victory for what they believe in" when he wasn't removed due to his race, but was just stolen. His race never came into the reason he was stolen. He could have been white, blue, or pink skinned and he would have had a case that he deserved to win)
Liverpool said:
Liverpool,
I have no idea what relevance your paste n’ post is to the prime minister’s speech which received a standing ovation from both sides of the house - and from what I can gather - approval from what appears to be the majority of your country men (and women).
In the article you posted, the prick who bashed the old lady was an indigenous aussie who in my book got off absurdly lightly. What's your point in regards to Kev's apology speech?
If he was a disadvantaged homeless white guy (and I hazard to guess there are plenty of them checking-in to the courts each day) and the old lady was an indigenous aussie, would that in some way reinforce Kev’s apology for past state sponsored repression and abuse?
I really don’t understand how you configure your connections.
But that’s okay - I’ve always supported the right of minorities to vent their spleen, no matter how irrelevant, how eccentric, how racist.
None the less, as you did make that post can you identify what relevant point you were making to ‘Kev’s apology speech’ in selecting that particular article to post?
