2 edits
Originally posted by chrissybI suppose you are referring to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which Australia was a founding signatory. Now riddle me this: if Australia was guilty of genocide, why would it sign (in 1948) and ratify (in 1951) a convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide? And why would not this same convention not bring Australian leaders to trial for said crime, if it thought they were guilty? Not only that, but Article IIe is clearly an artificial extension of the term - it is ridiculous to compare what happened in Australia to, say, the Nazi holocaust or the Rwandan slaughter by labelling them all 'genocide'.
I agree with drdon on this point. In a nutshell:
The definition of genocide can be found in the Genocide Convention otherwise Kruger v Cth. The assimilation policies of the Australian government (post 1901) are examples of genocide (according to the convention) in practice.
regarding current neglect, if laws are in place in favour of Indigenous people it is there for a reason; to rectify inequities.
EDIT: correction - Australia ratified the convention on 8 July 1949, making it, as far as I can see from a quick glance, the first country in the world to do so, just ahead of Norway.
EDIT: http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm
Originally posted by drdonI had a 1970 XW ute a while back, all primered gray. All classic cars are worth a mint now-a-days, but that one only cost a thousand bucks. It was only a 6, with a three-speed auto, CNG/petrol, and LSD. The steering was light, so it was good for cruising.
The GT was a great car with many still on the road today. A car exactly like the one in the pic was parked outside my neighbour's house yesterday, fully restored, in pristine condition. My neighbour is an enthusiast, so the noise level is sometimes on the high side!)
Do you have many on the road where you are? You might remember that they were hugely succes ...[text shortened]... amily sedan which handled like a wet sponge and was downright dangerous on corrugated corners.
It wasn't that fast, but one night when a mate was driving we nearly dragged off the police in it, lol. It had a canopy on the back which was loaded up with all these girls screaming for their lives. We were only on CNG to start with, so I turned the switch inbetween the CNG/petrol to change it over and it died at an intersection. My mate driving looks at me, and switch onto petrol. The police had trouble keeping up with us after that, but we were pretty dangerous. We got way ahead of them and pulled up a driveway thinking we had escaped. Nah!
The 1971 XY's were pretty cool. I think they may have been one of the fastest cars back then as a standard car with it's V8 and particular models. I saw one a while back for $50,000 (NZ), and I think it may have even just been a replica. Cool cars......
Originally posted by dfm65It is generally not a good principle to assume rationality or moral consistency among politicians. Doc Evatt is a fine example of why these assumptions are unsound.
I suppose you are referring to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which Australia was a founding signatory. Now riddle me this: if Australia was guilty of genocide, why would it sign (in 1948) and ratify (in 1951) a convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide? And why would not this same convention not brin ...[text shortened]... o do so, just ahead of Norway.
EDIT: http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm
Moreover, international agendas are frequently inconsistent with domestic policies and internal histories. More to the point, "war crimes" were intended to be applied to vanquished Axis powers rather than the righteous victors. I suggest that it simply did not occur to politicians of the day that what had been done to Aboriginal people was genocide. Because it did not occur to them does not mean that genocide didn’t happen.
Secondly, I don't think it is at all ridiculous to compare these events simply because there were fewer Aboriginal people to exterminate. An example: There is a huge waterfall in the New England area of NSW. An entire "tribe" - every man, woman and child troops could find in the area were rounded up and assembled at the cliff top then driven over the cliffs near the falls at bayonet point. They were a nuisance to farmers.
Not genocide? This may be not in the same scale as exterminating 6m Jews, but the same crime and just as repugnant. But we are the victors, the “good guys” … so it is not genocide? Why not?
Originally posted by Orange PeelI had a similar experience as a kid in an FX Holden at about the same time. It wasn't pretty, but gees it could move. It'd be worth a fortune now. It was the original cream colour. Somebody has probably sprayed it purple by now and sold it for the price of a house.
I had a 1970 XW ute a while back, all primered gray. All classic cars are worth a mint now-a-days, but that one only cost a thousand bucks. It was only a 6, with a three-speed auto, CNG/petrol, and LSD. The steering was light, so it was good for cruising.
It wasn't that fast, but one night when a mate was driving we nearly dragged off the police in it ...[text shortened]... hile back for $50,000 (NZ), and I think it may have even just been a replica. Cool cars......
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65The convention was ratified but there has been no statute enacted to bring this into domestic law. therefore the convention does not create or is not a direct source of individual rights and obligations. as i understand even HREOC does not provide individual rights but the Act is there for the purpose of restricting the government from abusin its power: Collins v South Australia.
I suppose you are referring to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which Australia was a founding signatory. Now riddle me this: if Australia was guilty of genocide, why would it sign (in 1948) and ratify (in 1951) a convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide? And why would not this same convention not brin o do so, just ahead of Norway.
EDIT: http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm
Legally, according to Kruger genocide did not occur. how did they work that out. because the assimilationist policies were considered to be in the best interests of Indigenous people, it would be so repugnant and against human decency and the principles of international law to find otherwise. So maybe it gets down to people's preference how they want to interpret Australian history and what faith they have in the legal system.
In the same breath, this is also the same legal system that said Australia was terra nullius until 1992. Everytime there was challenge to the concept of terra nullius since the 1800's they would extend its meaning and kept moving the goal posts so that it would become out of reach. according to Brennan J in Mabo, to do otherwise would fracture the skeletal principle of the legal system (i think the term was used from memory).
I am detecting from your posts that when you think of genocide you think of it in the context and magnitude of mass slaughter. The Indigenous people were spread right over this country and in remote areas at that time living in small community pockets. it is not as if 50,000 lived in darwin and were slaughtered. but massacres did occur as drdon gave an example and the Coniston massacre was another. the general dictionary meaning of massacre is defined as the wanton and savage killing of large numbers of people. i'm sure there is no need to define 'large numbers'.
Again, i think it depends on what version of history an individual chooses to believe. that is fine, that is their choice i am not posting to persuade you to think otherwise.
PS: it's also worth noting that the Indigenous people were not even considered citizens of their own land until 1967 so when our government was ratifying any international treaty the last thing they had in mind was protection for Indigenous people.
Just so. And often their souls which live in connectedness to the land. This alienation has produced a troubled generation of young Kooris. This connectedness must be restored. There can be no return to the past but a sense of belongingness must be nourished rather than starved through blaming the victims of injustice for the consequences of our wrong doing.
1 edit
Originally posted by drdonPresumably the body of nations that were signatories to the convention could have applied sanctionsa gainst Australia if they felt she was guilty of genocide, or at the very least excluded her from the convention.
It is generally not a good principle to assume rationality or moral consistency among politicians. Doc Evatt is a fine example of why these assumptions are unsound.
Moreover, international agendas are frequently inconsistent with domestic policies and internal histories. More to the point, "war crimes" were intended to be applied to vanquished Axis powers ust as repugnant. But we are the victors, the “good guys” … so it is not genocide? Why not?
And no, the case you mention is not genocide - mass murder yes, repugnant yes, but not an attempt to eliminate an entire race. Genocide is by nature a large-scale crime. The case you mention is the same as if the entire population of a country town was wiped out. mass murder? yes. Genocide? No. And mass murders have been perpetrated against whites in Australia too, eg Martin Bryant. Also, let's not forget there were massacres perpetrated by Aboriginals against European settlers too, which probably motivated revenge killings.
Originally posted by drdonMaybe if they had more public identities, their connectedness would be more intact. Only two come to mind for me. That guy who was in the shows with the croc hunter, and Anthony Mundene.
Just so. And often their souls which live in connectedness to the land. This alienation has produced a troubled generation of young Kooris. This connectedness must be restored. There can be no return to the past but a sense of belongingness must be nourished rather than starved through blaming the victims of injustice for the consequences of our wrong doing.
Originally posted by chrissybShow me a genocide that doesn't involve mass slaughter and i'll show you a non-genocide.
The convention was ratified but there has been no statute enacted to bring this into domestic law. therefore the convention does not create or is not a direct source of individual rights and obligations. as i understand even HREOC does not provide individual rights but the Act is there for the purpose of restricting the government from abusin its power: C ...[text shortened]... international treaty the last thing they had in mind was protection for Indigenous people.
No good invoking terra nullius - another British invention.
Originally posted by dfm65You like having your cake and eating it, don't you?
Show me a genocide that doesn't involve mass slaughter and i'll show you a non-genocide.
No good invoking terra nullius - another British invention.
Terra nullius might have been invented by the British but it was accepted and used by Australia until 1992.
Do you have any problem with the attempt to eradicate Aboriginal culture by educating them into dark facsimiles of Europeans as shown in Rabbit Proof Fence? That would be bloodless genocide--once the culture's gone there are no more people in that culture, only a lot of troubled individuals neither one thing nor the other (who are then invariably accused of laziness and drunkenness like they were responsible for destroying their own culture).
And, why are you so sensitive about this topic? What have you got to lose by admitting the obvious?