| |
G4EBT > STOLEN 22.09.09 16:32l 142 Lines 5596 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 181233G4EBT
Read: GUEST DL4NWM
Subj: "Teaching/Learning", KB2VXA
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<OK0NHD<OK0PHL<OK0PCC<OM0PBC<OK0PPL<DB0RES<DK0WUE<
GB7FCR
Sent: 090922/1017Z @:GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU #:32222 [Blackpool] FBB-7.03a $:181233G4
From: G4EBT@GB7FCR.#16.GBR.EU
To : STOLEN@WW
Warren wrote, in response to Bob:-
> OK, so you live there and know it all; too bad you don't give others
> credit for knowing better. Practising teachers take refresher courses
> but you retired having nothing more to learn, you know everything
> there is to know and make that perfectly clear to us mortals.
I've mentioned teaching resources several times.
The Bringing Them Home education module consists of teaching and learning
activities for use by teachers in a broad range of curriculum areas across
all Australia states and territories.
These provide an introduction to the laws, policies and practices in place
in Australia that authorised Indigenous children to be separated from
their families.
I can't understand why anyone who's the least bit interested in this, let
alone a former teacher, wouldn't want to access this stuff, less still
would be hostile towards this initiative or seek to discredit HREOC.
It isn't as though it's a "dubious source" as Bob often puts it. IMHO
all of this is a good news story, reflecting great credit on Australia.
HREOC sensibly recommends that teachers consider the sensitivities around
teaching controversial, making the point that discussion around topics
such as forced removals continues to generate a high level of emotion in
many communities.
That is not a reason to say "sweep it under the carpet".
http://www.humanrights.gov.au/education/bth/contents.html#resources
For more than a decade after the Bringing Them Home report on forced
separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, prime
minister, John Howard, and his conservative coalition colleagues
consistently rejected calls for a formal government apology.
One reason put forward for the rejection to calls for an apology was that
it was believed that if a formal apology was issued by the government,
some Indigenous Australians could act upon the apology as a confession
that could be used in the judicial system and the Indigenous Australians
could claim money etc. from the government.
That was a specious argument.
Any agency which takes custody over anyone - orphanages, care homes,
mental institutions, prisons, is known as a fiduciary. This is the highest
duty of care that exists.
Whether anyone has a case for compensation doesn't depend on whether
the government apologises for the policies, acts or omissions of former
governments, but whether they neglected their fiduciary duty. A successful
landmark case was made before the incoming Rudd government tendered an
apology on opening parliament in Feb 2008.
In any event, all state governments apologised long ago, as did the Church
institutions which accepted these children. The WA government apologised
within 24 hrs of the report being made public on 27 May 1997:
Quote:
Dr. Geoff Gallop, Leader of the Opposition
(motion supported by Premier, Richard Court)
"I move:
"That this House apologises to the Aboriginal people on behalf of all
Western Australians for the past policies under which Aboriginal children
were removed from their families and expresses deep regret at the hurt and
distress this has caused."
End quote.
Note: this statement:
1)"Apologises on behalf of all Western Australians"
2)"Expresses deep regret at the hurt and distress"
So Bob doesn't need to apologise for anything -
it was done on his behalf 18 years ago.
In August 2007 in a landmark case, well before Kevin Rudd, incoming
PM apolgised on behalf of the nation, Bruce Trevorrow, one of tens of
thousands of children seized from their native Australian families in
the 1950s and 1960s, was awarded A$525,000 (£220,000 GBP).
It hasn't triggered an avalanche of claims - all that most wanted was
"Sorry". That doesn't cost anything. Heck, Tony Blair bizarrely apologised
for the slave trade which was brought to an end by the efforts of a Hull
MP, William Wilberfoce more than 200 years ago and enforced by the British
navy when "Britannia ruled the waves".
That ought to have warranted a vote of thanks - not an apology. What would
be nice from Blair would be "sorry I mislead parliament and the British
people over Iraq".
Mr Trevorrow was 13 months old when taken from his family on Christmas Day
1957, and falsely imprisoned by the State as a child. He was owed a duty
of care for his pain and suffering, Judge Thomas Gray ruled in a South
Australian court.
Full story:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2182595.ece
Kevin Rudd's first act when opening parliament on 13 Feb 2008 was to
apologise. He had all party support and received a standing ovation.
Former Liberal minister Judi Moylan said:
"I think as a nation we owe an apology. We shouldn't be thinking about it
as an individual apology - it's an apology that is coming from the nation
state because it was governments that did these things."
Dr Brendon Nelson, opposition leader stated:
"I, on behalf of the Coalition, of the alternative government of
Australia, are [sic] providing in-principle support for the offer of an
apology to the forcibly removed generations of Aboriginal children."
So all from 1997 to 2008, the sticking point was John Howard.
I think most people knew that anyway.
Former prime ministers Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm
Fraser and Sir William Deane were all present Parliament, which must have
been a proud moment, long overdue.
Best wishes
David, G4EBT @ GB7FCR
Cottingham, East Yorkshire.
Message timed: 11:07 on 2009-Sep-22
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.70
(Registered).
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
