|
Australian Politics
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
In the interest of fairness, and with the intention of diverting attention away from US politics, I thought we could discuss the problems I feel that the Australian government has.
I understand that most of you would be unaware of the goings on in Australia, but if you want to join in then feel free to do some research and join in the criticism. ;)
Why I disagree with the Howard government:
- The treatment of refugees:
While the controversy has died down recently, the treatment of freedom-seeking refugees (mainly from states with oppressive governments) has, largely, been incredibly poor from a human rights perspective. The Tampa Bay crisis - where the Australian government accused refugees of throwing their children overboard at the risk of drowning them - has been shown to be a lie, where Howard and Downer (the Foreign Affairs minister) were shown up to have fabricated the entire ordeal with the defence force so as to convince the Australian public of the "immorality" of the refugees who seek sanctuary on our shores, thus gaining support for their own xenophobic policies.
Similarly, any refugess who are allowed onto Australian soil (many are sent straight back) are imprisoned in the North Australian outback (at a place called Woomera) in abhorrent conditions that we wouldn't expose our worst criminals to. They are penned in together, and many - if the news stories are true - are being forced to pay up to $12,000 to stay there under lock and key. Several human rights activists (admittedly many have rather dubious methods) have attempted to free the refugees from this prison.
In addition to this, the same government spent $AU 600 million on camps and outposts along the north Australian coast to "protect" us from these refuge-seeking people - money, I suspect, that could have been better employed to help us with the following problem.
- The treament of Australian Aborigines:
According to the UN, the Australian Aboriginal race - comparitively and on the whole - live under worse conditions than any other race on the planet. They are poorly educated, have, on average, a below the poverty line income and - considering they account for only 2% of the Australian population - their incarceration rate is astounding. Yet the government does nothing in attempt to alleviate the problem, nor - so far as I'm aware - has it even admitted there's a problem (despite the UN's protestations).
The issue of "reconciliation" was one that was quite big recently as well - put simply, the issue of reconciling the Australian Aborigines with the "whites" of European decent. Here, the government conveniently side-stepped the entire issue - rarely acknowledging it despite the massive public backing of this formal reconciliation - and stead-fastly refused - on behalf of the Australian commonwealth - to apologize for the travesties committed against the Aboriginal race since colonisation in 1788. Apparently, the fact that Governor Phillip actively encouraged the extermination of Aborigines on behalf on the Australian settlers - or the more recent "stolen genaration" where aboriginal children were literally "stolen" from their parents and sent into white homes (as part of some "conformity" plan I guess) - were too trivial to apologize for.
Anyway, I guess that's enough.
Jump right in to comment about any of these issues, or anything else you feel the Australian government should answer for. :)
(As I said, if you're unfamiliar with any of these issues, they shouldn't be too difficult to read up on on any Australian news site.) |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
- The treament of Australian Aborigines:
|
Forgive me for being too lazy and/or tired to go out and read up more on this for the time being, but this brings up a larger issue, in a general sense to me, and that's the fact that the treatment of aboriginal peoples *everywhere* has been e.
Maybe it's because I'm 1/4 aboriginal myself, but I have a high awareness of the problems plaguing aboriginals in every facet of life in modern society. High alcoholism, high suicide rates, high crime rates, low education rates, low social mobility, overall poverty extremely high in proportion to other ethnic groups in their countries, and so on down the line.
In that sense the Australian treatment doesn't shock me, because it's right in line with the treatment people received in Canada and the States. I really wish people in general would recognise how poorly aboriginals have been treated, and would do something to rectify the issue beyond minor "appeasements" like, for instance, free tuition in many states, and the right to own casinos.
I know most of you haven't really thought about it before, but how would you guys perceive the notion of chunks of Australia, Canada, the States, and other countries that have screwed over Aboriginals being given *back* to those peoples so they can form their own independent nations within the borders of said countries? Basically, take the reservation concept, and increase it to state/province/so on scale.
Obviously, when you get down to nitty gritty details it'd be a mess, but how do you take the idea *in general*? Would it bother you to see part of your country effectively seceded? Or would you support something that radical? |
|
|
| Renegade |
Well actually, the Aboriginal people have been given land rights in certain parts of the country, though the decision was one reached by the High Court, rather than the government.
It's a pretty difficult issue - and I don't understand all the legal issues involved - but the High Court overturned the "terra nulius" principle (envoked by white settlers when they arrived here, meaning "no-one's land") in a case between Eddie Mabo and the State of Queensland in 1992, meaning that Aboriginals had a claim to State owned land. Most land handed back is Aboriginal sacred ground in the center of Australia (including Uluru/Ayres Rock, which is why you are no longer permitted to climb it) and to be honest I'm not exactly sure what these "land rights" entitle the aboriginal people to.
This website may help:
http://www.dlwc.nsw.gov.au/care/land/alc/aboutalr.htm
Here it says:
| quote: | Land granted to Aboriginal Land Councils has been used for public parks, housing, cultural and heritage purposes, tourism and in some cases has been set aside for environmental protection. In this way Aboriginal people are playing an active role in the expansion and development of the towns and communities in which they live.
Aboriginal land rights have distinct benefits for the wider community, particularly when linked to land projects that generate employment and income through farming, mining, commerce, construction and other enterprises. |
So it's not quite as drastic as creating an "Aboriginal State" as you may have been suggesting, but it does give the Aboriginal people autonomous use of their "own" land.
It's worth nothing, again, that this was a legal decision, not one made by government. In fact, since the decision was made, governments (the Queensland gvt especially) have gone to a lot of effort to get this ruling overturned. I doubt that such a drastic ruling would have ever been made, if it was left merely up to government to make it.
Does this sound like the sort of thing you were talking about? Do the US or Canada have similar Land Rights issues? |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by CortexBomb
I know most of you haven't really thought about it before, but how would you guys perceive the notion of chunks of Australia, Canada, the States, and other countries that have screwed over Aboriginals being given *back* to those peoples so they can form their own independent nations within the borders of said countries? Basically, take the reservation concept, and increase it to state/province/so on scale.
Obviously, when you get down to nitty gritty details it'd be a mess, but how do you take the idea *in general*? Would it bother you to see part of your country effectively seceded? Or would you support something that radical? |
i general, something could be worked out if a genuine nationalist movement represnting the aboriginal people takes hold, though as you said the details would be a mess. two issues however that i see as problem-atic are
1) the majority of native americans lack the concept of property rights. in their society (as i've been told be a friend who has heritage) there is no mine and yours, and specifically, no one owns land, it belongs to the spirits of nature and so forth (excuse me for sounding stereotypical, no offense meant). so the ironic question arises, on how can a group rule or have soverginty over a land when they infact dont belive in those principles.
2) who becomes a citizen/civilian? how do you prove it? what area should it be? should present day native americans be compinsated for treatment of their distant relatives (at least three generations ago)? |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
...about the whole aboriginal/native indian concept... i believe its simply darwinism at work, survival of the fittest. On the same token you cannot expect a couple of hundred aboriginals in said tribe to occupy and "claim" sooo much land. Granted, the governments did kind of "steal" it from them, but thats what happens in nature. how do you think the americans claimed the states from england?
Now, i think what the US government is doing for the native indians is more than enough for making up for it - they have reservations where they don't get taxed on hardly anything, they are allowed to have casinos where they make BANK - most of the indians on the reservation by my last house were all driving mercedes and BMW's... all pretty much living large, had huge houses with pools, etc...
You have to realize there were hundreds of tribes all spread out - you can't give them each a "state". There are more European-Americans than native americans.... Nature took its course, people spread out.
Now back to Australia, i don't know as well what is happening over there as compared to here, but i am assuming its not much worse (if worse at all). Well..... i dont even know what my point was here, so nevermind :p |
|
|
| ABTsportsline |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
i general, something could be worked out if a genuine nationalist movement represnting the aboriginal people takes hold, though as you said the details would be a mess. two issues however that i see as problem-atic are
1) the majority of native americans lack the concept of property rights. in their society (as i've been told be a friend who has heritage) there is no mine and yours, and specifically, no one owns land, it belongs to the spirits of nature and so forth (excuse me for sounding stereotypical, no offense meant). so the ironic question arises, on how can a group rule or have soverginty over a land when they infact dont belive in those principles.
2) who becomes a citizen/civilian? how do you prove it? what area should it be? should present day native americans be compinsated for treatment of their distant relatives (at least three generations ago)? |
ahh i see the point now - my point was that most natives that were originally upsetted by the "upsetting of the spirits" and the stealing of the land were easily qualmed with money put in front of their faces. As does usually happen, religion takes a back-seat to money.
That and maintaining of heritage - a lot of natives like to keep their dating to other natives to keep the heritage alive. All fine and dandy, but after a couple of generations there will be some inbreeding going on .... ;) |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
- The treatment of refugees:
While the controversy has died down recently, the treatment of freedom-seeking refugees (mainly from states with oppressive governments) has, largely, been incredibly poor from a human rights perspective. The Tampa Bay crisis - where the Australian government accused refugees of throwing their children overboard at the risk of drowning them - has been shown to be a lie, where Howard and Downer (the Foreign Affairs minister) were shown up to have fabricated the entire ordeal with the defence force so as to convince the Australian public of the "immorality" of the refugees who seek sanctuary on our shores, thus gaining support for their own xenophobic policies.
Similarly, any refugess who are allowed onto Australian soil (many are sent straight back) are imprisoned in the North Australian outback (at a place called Woomera) in abhorrent conditions that we wouldn't expose our worst criminals to. They are penned in together, and many - if the news stories are true - are being forced to pay up to $12,000 to stay there under lock and key. Several human rights activists (admittedly many have rather dubious methods) have attempted to free the refugees from this prison.
In addition to this, the same government spent $AU 600 million on camps and outposts along the north Australian coast to "protect" us from these refuge-seeking people - money, I suspect, that could have been better employed to help us with the following problem.
|
firstly sorry if im not specifically familiar with the australian side of this problem but the way i see it is that every country has a right to decide who it decides to naturalize into its country as a citizen. if a country decides that no immagration will be allowed and a complete block to refugees then it has to right to do so (or does geneva prove me wrong).
how-ever in australia as in america, i belive, those who seek politcal asylum, as in those who would otherwise be target or threatened by the government of the country he comes from, attain automatic preminant residence status. In your case i feel it is wrong for australia to hold the incoming refugees in such horrid conditions, but your country should, and has the right to take them back to the original country if those refugees came for any other reason then a direct threat on their lives, such as being economically poor.
let me give you a recent example from the US.
America does naturalize and cuban who lands on the shore of america because their lives would be in peril if they were to be returned to thier home country - they are political refugees. as did america naturalize afganis during and after the latest war there - agian they were political refugees. however, it is americas policy to immediatly send back those who set foot in america who have come from mexico or haiti for example, because those 'refugee' have sought out america for its economic status and other benifets that thier country cant/doesnt provide. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
1) the majority of native americans lack the concept of property rights. in their society (as i've been told be a friend who has heritage) there is no mine and yours, and specifically, no one owns land, it belongs to the spirits of nature and so forth (excuse me for sounding stereotypical, no offense meant). so the ironic question arises, on how can a group rule or have soverginty over a land when they infact dont belive in those principles.
|
I can't speak for Australian natives, but most Native American tribes have adopted the concept of propery rights into their societies for pragmatic reasons. The bigger problem, though, is that how do you divide up the land between tribes? Most of them still don't look at themselves as being one ethnic group, but many. You can't just give them a bunch of land and tell them to divide it up amongst themselves - and no matter how you divided it up for them there would be some group that would feel slighted.
I don't think it's nearly as big a problem in the US as in Australia (based on what Renegade was saying). Over the last century, poverty amongst Native Americans has dropped drastically (although it is still much higher than the general population), while education has improved a great deal. The tribe that I'm descended from is actually quite prosperous, making nearly $8000 per capita from casino revenue alone. In fact, the salary they pay the tribal chairperson is higher than the salary paid to the President of the United States.
As far as the problem in AU with the Aborigines, I think the main thing the government ought to do is simply admit they were wrong and apologize. Further than that, some form of aid, preferably education, would seem to be in the interest of everyone, not just the Aborigines - as its long term benefits would outweigh the investment needed to set up institutions to improve these conditions. Also it disturbs me that the government seems to be ignoring popular opinion although that problem is frequently manifested here in the states as well. |
|
|
| sifntj0r |
yes that's right, it's the governments fault when immigrants try to enter our country illegally
have you even seen the footage from the navy of the overboard incident? it looks like they are throwing people overboard, so forgive some middle-level government employee for leaking it to the press who then claim it to be the stance of the entire government.
oh yes, poor refugee's in woomera, again, if you have seen footage of the antics that they get up to, i'm ing glad they're locked up.
instead of listening to some rich, retarded university student who whines on national tv via the current affairs programmes, try reading/listening to some accounts given by the detention officers who actually run the facility.
your views seem very one sided, try listen to both sides and make your mind up.
the country is going great guns anyway, why is there any need to criticise boring old topics, other than to satisfy the need for intellectual and jaded TA's to flame another country other than their own. |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by ABTsportsline
ahh i see the point now - my point was that most natives that were originally upsetted by the "upsetting of the spirits" and the stealing of the land were easily qualmed with money put in front of their faces. As does usually happen, religion takes a back-seat to money.
That and maintaining of heritage - a lot of natives like to keep their dating to other natives to keep the heritage alive. All fine and dandy, but after a couple of generations there will be some inbreeding going on .... ;) |
On the first point, I think you're missing the actual thought process behind the selling of the land. As Izzy stated above, the Aborigines *had* no concept of land ownership. They'd usually move around from time to time to follow the animal herds, or to find new places to gather fruits and vegetables from...thus, the notion of someone giving them money for land was crazy, they had *no* conception of "permanent" ownership like we have, and I think they likely assumed that the white guys *really* liked that particular land, enough that they were willing to give valuables to them for the use of it.
I also think you overblow reality in the second statement, yes, some aboriginals prefer to date within ethnic lines, especially people more actively involved in the community, but a lot of people are taking the attitude that it's more how you perceive things than the colour of your skin or hair. There are a lot of people of aboriginal heritage who have and want nothing to do with that way of life or thinking. Then there are people from other ethnic groups who are very sympathetic and interested in that way of life.
I know in my family, my grandfather was a full-blooded potawatomi, he married a full blooded white woman. (who incidentally, ended up being one of those *very* active members despite her non-aborigine background) Their children all married to caucasians as well, (including my Aunt Jodie, who's also *very* active in the community) and so forth. So exclusive dating or interest in other natives isn't a gold standard by any stretch. |
|
|
| CortexBomb |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter The bigger problem, though, is that how do you divide up the land between tribes? Most of them still don't look at themselves as being one ethnic group, but many. You can't just give them a bunch of land and tell them to divide it up amongst themselves - and no matter how you divided it up for them there would be some group that would feel slighted.
|
Well, this is the problem that I know would be the killer in anything this radical, but here's one concept.
Say, for instance, that you set aside a certain chunk of the country for a "unified" Aboriginal country, I think you could resolve issues of "they got too much land" or such by having the initial settlers to the new area being given a certain pre-determined amount of land, and then selling to later comers at a reasonable cost, with money being paid directly in to the government of the new nation.
I think for it to work you'd obviously have to get over some of the ages old tribal animosity, but I also think, if you actually went forward with something of this magnitude, the people could come together.
If it was actually an independent country within a country, you could have a large scale council, with each tribe having a representative for voting on matters, each with an equal say.
I don't think all the tribes would necessarily have to *get along* for something like this to work, I think they'd just need to be unified enough to keep the overall government up and running, enough to provide services for the people living there (i.e.: police, fire, infrastructure, housing for elders, health care? and so on) Beyond that it'd just be politics as normal. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | yes that's right, it's the governments fault when immigrants try to enter our country illegally |
No, not at all. But, at the same time, the Australian government has a responsibility to shelter genuine refugees (and I am aware that many of these "boat people" are not genuine refugees) whether they wish to declare these refugees as "illegals" or not.
Are you familiar with the Geneva convention? Then this pdf file may interest you:
The 1951 Refugee Convention
It's basically the rules devised by the UN with regards to treatment of refugees under the Geneva convention. To quote this document:
"No contracting state shall return a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a country where he or she fears prosecution".
This protocol was passed by the UN Secretary General in 1967, binding all member states to follow its guidelines. Australia was one of the 26 nations at the original conference, with the intention of initiating this refugee protocol. Can we say that Australia has lived up to its own standards in this regard?
To continue:
"The unity of the family..... is an essential right of the refugee."
Again, there have been several instances where refugees have been denied contact with their own family members, already citizens of Australia. Do you remember that Pakistani man who set himself on fire in front of parliament house because of his family's incarceration? Does this sound like the unity of family the UN resolution stresses?
There is more on family later on (page 13) which stresses this point further, and brings to mind more instances where the Howard government has failed in its duty of care.
Anyway, I could go on and on about the rights that refugees are afforded under this UN resolution and have subsequently been denied by th Howard government. If you think I'm wrong, then that's for you to decide, but in the interests of "listening to both sides" as you put it, I'd encourage that you download and read this article, and judge for yourself just how many "Articles" from this resolution the Howard government is violating at this very moment.
| quote: | | have you even seen the footage from the navy of the overboard incident? it looks like they are throwing people overboard, so forgive some middle-level government employee for leaking it to the press who then claim it to be the stance of the entire government. |
Fair enough, I can see how the misunderstanding may have occurred.
But, the entire issue was that the Howard government learned - several months before it got out to the media - that the entire ordeal was fabricated, yet made no attempt whatsoever to inform the public. They continued to allow the public to view these refugees in an inaccurate light, though very much in a way that would allow the government to garner support for its xenophobic policies. And lets face it, the Tampa Bay crisis gave the right-wing public exactly the sort of stereotype it was after: immoral boat people, who would be prepared to sacrifice the lives of their children just to gain access to this country.
And John Howard allowed this stereotype to propogate, even though he knew full-well that it was entirely untrue. He lied to stir up antipathy against those seeking refuge on the shores, and even when he was exposed as a liar, Howard made no attempt to make an example out of those responsible (i.e. Ruddock, Downer) for the fabrication.
And this wasn't something I just read from some uni newsletter, just to kill off that stereotype. It was headline news on all the papers, even the conservative ones - just in case you were asleep for the first 3 months of this year.
| quote: | | oh yes, poor refugee's in woomera, again, if you have seen footage of the antics that they get up to, i'm ing glad they're locked up. |
What sort of antics?
The hunger stikes to draw attention to their need for better conditions, you mean? Or the protests against being locked up like criminals for months or even years, while seperated from family and with nowhere to go?
Or something else perhaps?
| quote: | | your views seem very one sided, try listen to both sides and make your mind up. |
I may offer the same advice to you. ;)
| quote: | | the country is going great guns anyway, why is there any need to criticise boring old topics, other than to satisfy the need for intellectual and jaded TA's to flame another country other than their own. |
I agree, this country is in a great state at the moment, and I have always loved living here. However, some government actions need to be criticized - even if 99 decisions are good ones, if the hundredth is poor, we need to make it known.
Perhaps read what I said about the need to criticize the US government in the "Bashing America" topic to understand why I feel it necessary to criticize some of the decisions made by the Howard government. |
|
|
|
|
