Who, you might ask, is Dr Colin Tatz?
Why is he 'On Trial' ? and what's the venue, who is the judge?
He is on "trial" in the court of "Public Opinion" and the judge, jury and and prosecuting attorney is...'you'.
What 'charges' ? In my view, he is on trial for "treason" in the social sense. If you, the reader think that's a bit over the top, you might like to look at what another academic who seems to share similar political and ethno/religous background to Colin Tatz, says.. about the 'white race'.
Tatz is an academic in the field of history. He came to Australia from Sth Africa and we embraced him, gave him a place to live, work and teach, and even saw him take up prestigious positions in Universities.
But there appears to be a dark side to Colin Tatz, and it is found in what seems to me to be a rather strange desire to destroy the society which welcomed him. Who would do that? (in his mind he might regard his efforts as 'improving' Australia but I don't see it that way)
I imagine he might take strong exception to being characterized thus, but then...I take extremely strong exception to being lumped in, by implication and inference with the Nazi's and perpetrators of Genocide.
The Law: Criminal Code Act 1995
Refer Section 80.1AA Treason—materially assisting enemies etc.
Assisting enemies at war with the Commonwealth
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the Commonwealth is at war with an enemy (whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared);c) the person engages in conduct; and
d) the person intends that the conduct will materially assist the enemy to engage in war with the Commonwealth; and
e) the conduct assists the enemy to engage in war with the Commonwealth; and
f) when the person engages in the conduct, the person:
(i) is an Australian citizen; or
(ii) is a resident of Australia; or
(iii) has voluntarily put himself or herself under the protection of the Commonwealth; It might be a worthwhile exercise to investigate rhetoric flying around on January 26th at a gathering of Aboriginals in the Fitzroy Gardens in Melbourne, "Invasion Day" as they describe it, and see if words like 'Revolution' or 'take back the land' or 'Aboriginal Sovereignty' or the such like are used. Such language, if used, would be strongly suggestive of a state of war, declared only by one side, the Aboriginal, most likely at the urging and agitation of cunning political wolves, who see this as an opportunity to advance their own agenda, using (after feeding it) the ill feeling generated among the Aboriginal community to do so. If such rhetoric was present, we should not hold the Aboriginal community responsible for it, but we should most definitely hold those who exploit it, feed it,stoke it and pander to it responsible for creating an atmosphere of cold (but warming) war against White Australia and the Crown!
Mr Tatz seems to be operating on the political ideology brought to us courtesy of the Frankfurt school of marxist social critics. But how is he trying to destroy Australia? Is he trying to destroy it?
He has, in my opinion, taken it upon himself, to place himself outside the mainstream Australian social order, and to attack it., undermine it, white-ant it, and obliterate it.
The law is instructive here:
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 Section 24
(1) A person (the offender) must not on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely:
a) To incite hatred against that other person of class of persons; and
b) to threaten, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards that other person or class of persons or the property of that other person or class of persons.
24:3 b) may occur in or outside Victoria. (put bluntly, 'you can run, but you can't hide')
Punishment (Criminal) imprisonment for 6 months or 60 penalty units or both.
There is an exemption for academic work "done in good faith"...but this concept has received substantial legal scrutiny in recent times. To me, "good faith" means the use of reliable, verified sources and 'reasonable' means checking them for truthfulness, specially when it comes to race relations.
Jones V Tobin is a relevant case in this connection. Under section 2.2 the respondent Dr Frederick Tobin, on trial for insulting, offensive behavior (against Jews) raised the issue of "Truth" as a defense.
The Commissioner Kathleen McEvoy responded:
I indicated to Dr Toben that was not the issue before me or the issue I had to determine under the Act. My view is that I am required to determine whether a public act has been carried out by Dr Toben which “is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people”. (ie. RDA section 18)...in the context of 'racial' hatred.
Tobin can and did claim 'good faith/genuine belief' in the issues he raised on the Adelaide Institute website (which included "holocaust denial") but in the end, that did not save him.
Although Tatz book "With intent to destroy, reflecting on Genocide" was originally published in 1999, it was re-published in 2003 and Mr Tatz made no effort as far as I am aware to stop publication, or to incorporate updated publicly available findings regarding his source Dr Ryan, in the light of the now public knowledge of the falsehoods, inventions and exaggerations, (2) included in Ryan's book, so, I believe this lack of action represents complicity and therefore infringement of the law, to use his own terminology-
"In the vocabulary of genocide there are three parties: the perpetrators, the victims, and the
bystanders - those without whom the perpetrators cannot effect their purposes." (1)
Colin Tatz is out there beating us with his ideological and historical Nulla Nulla trying to persuade the world that 'White' Australia (legally this is 'race or class of persons') is guilty of this very crime of Genocide. The Convention was not written until 1949. Australia signed it after 2000. In both cases long after the alleged events he mentions.
At this point, it is worth pointing out that this blog does NOT believe that nothing bad happened to Aboriginal Australians, or that large numbers were decimated by disease, or that in some instances significant numbers were killed as retribution or, that some were deliberately cleared them from a certain area in the interests of peace and viability for white settlers or that some were killed or cleared out of pure greed for land. It is also clear that the Aboriginals have been supplanted from huge areas of Australia, by white settlers. We reject the term 'invasion' and 'genocide' as dangerous for healthy race relations in Australia and as balanced expressions of what actually happened. I reject totally that the whole of our early history can be characterized by just a single word or politically motivated soundbite.
We might ask 'of what value' is it, to rant and rave about the badddd white Aussies of yesteryear? Who benefits from such actions? There are definite potential advantages...and they are mostly political, but they can also be economic... and very much so for those "human rights" lawyers who then jump on the bandwagon and try to sensationalize such things and begin litigation...against Australia.
One gets a bit suspicious though, when you see a frequent and identifiable ethno religious(?)./ideological commonality and connection running through many of these 'academics' and so called 'human rights' lawyers. The Academics do the ground work, and try to 'prove a case exists.'...then their mates the lawyers pick up the batton and try to extract megamillions of compensation for their chosen 'victim group' (and their own huge 'legal fees'?) from the government and ultimately 'you' and me, the taxpayers. This is in effect 'cultural marxism' normally termed 'progressive' political ideology.
In his article "Genocide in Australia" Tatz cites the UN convention and definition and then tries to apply them to Australian history and white people.
He selects, for example "KILLING MEMBERS OF A GROUP" Then he has a footnote 26 which refers to the largely mythological work by Dr Lyndall Ryan who 'makes up numbers' because she does not have any evidence.
Before tearing Colin Tatz to shreds, I should point out one more important point. In regard to the events in Tasmania, he totally neglects to mention the killings of whites by criminal aboriginals from outside the region.
Now.. if whites killing blacks who are an "identifiable group", is a sign of genocide, why would he not also mention blacks killing whites who are also an 'identifiable group' ?
In my view, it's all in the devious and dark malicious political agenda!
Now..let's see what we have here.
1/ Tatz is given a home in Australia...which welcomed him.
2/ Tatz then seeks to destroy his new home with baseless allegations from dodgy historians who make up numbers without evidence, to claim we are in contravention of a UN convention about genocide.
3/ He also tries to equate the troubles between black and white Aussies as on a par with or having similar characteristics with the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.
4/ The only possible reason he would do this, in my opinion, is that he has some sinister reason for inciting racial hatred in Australia, which is an offense under 18c of the RDA and is a criminal offense in Victoria under the RRT2001 section
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
Nice ! give a wandering scholar a home..and he bites you viciously with his sharpened teeth and trashes his rented home. Well.. a message to Mr Tatz from this web site... "incitement to racial hatred" is an offense ...and we might jusssst bite you back and very strongly!
If Colin Tatz elects to use flawed sources, without checking those sources (e.g. Ryan) and the issue is race relations, I don't believe he can claim 'genuine academic purpose' done reasonably and in good faith.
Let's remember the UN convention is not only about 'prevention'...but also about 'punishment'!
So.... how do you 'punish' long dead white Aussies for things supposedly done against Aboriginals? Aaaah.. time to wake up, you call in your human rights lawyer mates and then make outrageous demands to the current crop of tax payers, for HUGE compensation for those you have claimed are the victims of genocide.
Forget that you used mythical or dodgy sources to 'prove' this, no.. just run with the HR lawyers and try to bankrupt the country! Of course.. you will be heavily rewarded for your efforts...from those who stand to gain from such actions.
In his book:"With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide" Tatz waxes long and hard about the 'motive' of people who deny such things.. and he lumps them in with the holocaust deniers and asks 'what is their motive?'... well.. I turn that question around and ask him "why" are you doing this ?
Perhaps, as his work involves much about what supposedly happened to Aboriginal people, we might borrow an image which is most appropriate for how his scholarly work might come back on him as the image below suggests.
The issue of "incitement to racial hatred" will from now on be the subject of on-going investigation.
CONCLUSION. As to the issue of "Is Colin Tatz a traitor to Australia?" That be a decision for you to make for yourself based on the information herein provided. I do not say that he "is"... but I do say 'it looks that way' in the light of evidence of his conduct and public statements.
For him to be a 'traitor' in the legal sense it would have to be firstly alleged and then proven in a court of law, so at this point it must be pointed out that he is innocent of such an allegation until proven guilty.
Given his own hyper emphasis on the 'moral and legal' responsibility for what he describes clearly as 'genocide' against aboriginal Australians, one is temped to project that same 'moral and legal' responsibility onto Mr Tatz in regard to at least 'inciting racial hatred' against white Australians.
A phone call this morning to an Aboriginal group in Melbourne confirmed that they would like to challenge the idea that already settled and freehold land cannot be returned to them. The conversation was very congenial and friendly. The dear lady who was at the other end, stated it is only lack of funding for suitable lawyers holding them back. This is quite understandable at the emotional level, but practically? not much of a flyer.
1. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/docs/dp/DP08.pdf Genocide in Australia Page 4.
2. http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/history/winddebatehr03.html
No comments:
Post a Comment