I can't really talk junk about this guy. When I saw The Grudge I was terrified of Gram's cat for like 2 week....
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The "Stolen Generation"- an Academic attempts to Criminalize White Australia.
There appears to be a very concerted attempt to criminalize Australia in a legal minefield over the issue of 'Genocide'. There are a number of very high profile Legal minds working on this, and the level of threat it constitutes for Australias race relations and social harmony should not be underestimated.
Leading the charge on the History front is Sociology professor Colin Tatz (see previous entry) who asserts that the history of White Black relations in Australia is one of genocide. Then on the legal front there is firstly Ron Castan QC who was senior council for the Mabo case, which saw the introduction of the 'Native Title Act' as an outcome.
Now we have Dr Ben Saul of University of Sydney, Faculty of law, who is making assertions in his paper as follows: (1)
"Analyses of the Court's reasoning in Kruger have suggested a judiciary that is unfamiliar with contemporary international and comparative jurisprudence on the offence of genocide; insensitive to cross-cultural differences arising out of the meaning of genocidal statutory provisions; and bound by excessively legalistic methods of statutory interpretation. These difficulties arguably led the High Court to formalistically interpret the intention of an indigenous child removal ordinance as benevolent rather than destructive, contrary to the weight of international interpretation and ultimately to the detriment of the stolen generations claimants." (Ben Saul)
Blog Comment/discussion.
The plain fact of the UN convention on Genocide is that it's key element is "intent" to destroy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
His remarks above are in the context of some high court cases re the so-called 'stolen' generation where the court found that based on the "Aboriginal Ordnances 1918" which authorized the removal of some full blood, and most half castes for their protection and welfare. This is abundantly clear when actually reading the document. The Chief protector of Aboriginals was to supply provisions.. blankets, food etc for the welfare of the children. He was indeed authorized to take into custody any aboriginal or half caste child found on the premises of people.. presumably to prevent them being exploited.
Bleakley, chief protector of Aboriginals NT wrote a report on how to deal with the half caste/full blood issue:
"complete separation of half-castes from the Aboriginals with a view to their absorption by the white race; [and] complete segregation from both blacks and whites in colonies of their own and to marry amongst themselves."
The most that can be reasonably drawn from such an approach is "Apartide"
That such a procedure be charazterized as 'Genocide' is possibly one of the most heinous insults the Commonwealth of Australia and White Australians today could be subjected to. But this is what Saul (and Matthew Storey) is arguing. He is saying that because the 'Act' was benevolent and that our courts so interpret it.. that they are out of touch ! This patently ridiculous. Not only is it absurd and ridiculous, it's also dangerous!
It is ridiculous and absurd, because the convention he relies on to form this opinion specifically counters his argument. If Australia was guilty of Genocide in the legal sense of the UN convention, our own Ordinance would need to state "intent" to destroy. Not only does it not state such, it affirms the opposite.. the welfare of Aboriginal chidren.
Unlike the Nazi's who had very well documented material outlining or testifying to the planned destruction of the Jews as a race.. no such evidence is found in the Aboriginal Ordinance 1918. Considering the importance of the issue, ie.. race relations between white and aboriginal Australians, to suggest 'Genocide' happened, is, to quote Dr Ben Sauls own words:
The "enemy" here is clearly the White Australian population and Dr Saul is working in parallel with Dr Tatz to demonize White Australia by seeking to suggest that the UN Convention does not mean what it says, and that the Aboriginal Ordinance 1918 does not mean what it says, rather, they mean what Dr Saul and Dr Tatz want them to mean. Other than the printed word on paper, what does that leave us with for settling this issue? Is it no more than Dr Tatz and Dr Sauls personal opinions? Are those opinions possibly heavily weighted with a specific political agenda ?
It's worth pointing out that both Dr Saul and Dr Tatz are Jewish. They speak, act and write from their own ethno religious background context. Ron Castan of Marbo..is also Jewish. They surely do not speak for all Jewish people, but they definitely speak for themselves and any socio-political agenda close to their hearts. According to some, (bullet point 3)the "Jewish connection" in the field of human rights and aboriginal history stems from their own shared historical experiences. But that assertion seems to this blog to be inherently biased against the host society if actions and words mean anything. Dr Saul knows how dangerous such hateful rhetoric is, as his quote above clearly demonstrates, yet with the other hand, he is seeking to demonize and criminalize Australia for past deeds.
Does this mean Dr Saul, along with Dr Tatz are inciting hatred against white Australians ? It sure looks that way to this blog.
We have a complete right to ask "why?" .. "who" benefits? "who" loses? how would any party benefit? what would the impact be on national harmony if such incitement were to continue unchallenged?
When highly educated academics actively incite racial hatred between two groups in Australia, can there be a positive outcome?
If a small identifiable group of academics, characterized by certain common characteristics, is visibly undermining White Austalian solidarity, dignity and self esteem, is it not possible that there could be a rather strong (and unpredictable) reaction against them, and, God forbid, against those who share their background? Who would be to blame for such a thing? Is it those who unleash the monster of racial hatred, who attack the dignity or the dominant racial group, who insult them, who demonize them, or..those who simply react to that unleashing , to preserve their identity and dignity against a very emphatic, determined and articulate foe?
.
1. "The International Crime of Genocide in Australian law": Sydney Law Review vol 22 P. 534
2. Kruger Genocide claim.
3. Speaking of Terror: Criminalizing Incitement to violence: Page 1, Legal Studies Research Paper
No. 08/112
Leading the charge on the History front is Sociology professor Colin Tatz (see previous entry) who asserts that the history of White Black relations in Australia is one of genocide. Then on the legal front there is firstly Ron Castan QC who was senior council for the Mabo case, which saw the introduction of the 'Native Title Act' as an outcome.
Now we have Dr Ben Saul of University of Sydney, Faculty of law, who is making assertions in his paper as follows: (1)
"Analyses of the Court's reasoning in Kruger have suggested a judiciary that is unfamiliar with contemporary international and comparative jurisprudence on the offence of genocide; insensitive to cross-cultural differences arising out of the meaning of genocidal statutory provisions; and bound by excessively legalistic methods of statutory interpretation. These difficulties arguably led the High Court to formalistically interpret the intention of an indigenous child removal ordinance as benevolent rather than destructive, contrary to the weight of international interpretation and ultimately to the detriment of the stolen generations claimants." (Ben Saul)
Blog Comment/discussion.
Dr Saul seems to have a very specific objective. "To Criminalize White Australia". Notice his train of argument.
a)He criticizes our Legal system as 'unfamiliar' with 'international' jurisprudence. He seems not to realize that our courts and legal system are a product of the history of the country .. a sovereign country.
a)He criticizes our Legal system as 'unfamiliar' with 'international' jurisprudence. He seems not to realize that our courts and legal system are a product of the history of the country .. a sovereign country.
But
b)his reference point, is clearly not our sovereign situation, but "International Law". Even in invoking this, he is in error. No amount of special pleading and empty arguing can change well intended measures to protect aboriginal children into 'Genocide'. (Though Matthew Storey senior solicitor of the NTdept of Justice, is having a very good try at doing just that!) It seems bizarre that Storey, a white bloke, (?) would demonize his own 'tribe'? -especially those who are not alive to defend themselves. Seems a bit like a kick below the belt to this blog!
b)his reference point, is clearly not our sovereign situation, but "International Law". Even in invoking this, he is in error. No amount of special pleading and empty arguing can change well intended measures to protect aboriginal children into 'Genocide'. (Though Matthew Storey senior solicitor of the NTdept of Justice, is having a very good try at doing just that!) It seems bizarre that Storey, a white bloke, (?) would demonize his own 'tribe'? -especially those who are not alive to defend themselves. Seems a bit like a kick below the belt to this blog!
The plain fact of the UN convention on Genocide is that it's key element is "intent" to destroy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------His remarks above are in the context of some high court cases re the so-called 'stolen' generation where the court found that based on the "Aboriginal Ordnances 1918" which authorized the removal of some full blood, and most half castes for their protection and welfare. This is abundantly clear when actually reading the document. The Chief protector of Aboriginals was to supply provisions.. blankets, food etc for the welfare of the children. He was indeed authorized to take into custody any aboriginal or half caste child found on the premises of people.. presumably to prevent them being exploited.
Bleakley, chief protector of Aboriginals NT wrote a report on how to deal with the half caste/full blood issue:
"complete separation of half-castes from the Aboriginals with a view to their absorption by the white race; [and] complete segregation from both blacks and whites in colonies of their own and to marry amongst themselves."
The most that can be reasonably drawn from such an approach is "Apartide"
That such a procedure be charazterized as 'Genocide' is possibly one of the most heinous insults the Commonwealth of Australia and White Australians today could be subjected to. But this is what Saul (and Matthew Storey) is arguing. He is saying that because the 'Act' was benevolent and that our courts so interpret it.. that they are out of touch ! This patently ridiculous. Not only is it absurd and ridiculous, it's also dangerous!
It is ridiculous and absurd, because the convention he relies on to form this opinion specifically counters his argument. If Australia was guilty of Genocide in the legal sense of the UN convention, our own Ordinance would need to state "intent" to destroy. Not only does it not state such, it affirms the opposite.. the welfare of Aboriginal chidren.
Unlike the Nazi's who had very well documented material outlining or testifying to the planned destruction of the Jews as a race.. no such evidence is found in the Aboriginal Ordinance 1918. Considering the importance of the issue, ie.. race relations between white and aboriginal Australians, to suggest 'Genocide' happened, is, to quote Dr Ben Sauls own words:
"Propaganda has long been the hand-maiden of violence: inciting, justifying and naturalising it; ploughing the ground for violence by softening our psychological defences to it and desensitizing us to its brutalizing effects. Much of the power of propaganda stems from what is left unspoken: the vast possibilities of imagination triggered by clever, subtle and insidious emotional provocation. Equally, propaganda can be ruthlessly blunt, by demonising, belittling or degrading the enemy." (3)
The "enemy" here is clearly the White Australian population and Dr Saul is working in parallel with Dr Tatz to demonize White Australia by seeking to suggest that the UN Convention does not mean what it says, and that the Aboriginal Ordinance 1918 does not mean what it says, rather, they mean what Dr Saul and Dr Tatz want them to mean. Other than the printed word on paper, what does that leave us with for settling this issue? Is it no more than Dr Tatz and Dr Sauls personal opinions? Are those opinions possibly heavily weighted with a specific political agenda ?
It's worth pointing out that both Dr Saul and Dr Tatz are Jewish. They speak, act and write from their own ethno religious background context. Ron Castan of Marbo..is also Jewish. They surely do not speak for all Jewish people, but they definitely speak for themselves and any socio-political agenda close to their hearts. According to some, (bullet point 3)the "Jewish connection" in the field of human rights and aboriginal history stems from their own shared historical experiences. But that assertion seems to this blog to be inherently biased against the host society if actions and words mean anything. Dr Saul knows how dangerous such hateful rhetoric is, as his quote above clearly demonstrates, yet with the other hand, he is seeking to demonize and criminalize Australia for past deeds.
Does this mean Dr Saul, along with Dr Tatz are inciting hatred against white Australians ? It sure looks that way to this blog.
We have a complete right to ask "why?" .. "who" benefits? "who" loses? how would any party benefit? what would the impact be on national harmony if such incitement were to continue unchallenged?
When highly educated academics actively incite racial hatred between two groups in Australia, can there be a positive outcome?
If a small identifiable group of academics, characterized by certain common characteristics, is visibly undermining White Austalian solidarity, dignity and self esteem, is it not possible that there could be a rather strong (and unpredictable) reaction against them, and, God forbid, against those who share their background? Who would be to blame for such a thing? Is it those who unleash the monster of racial hatred, who attack the dignity or the dominant racial group, who insult them, who demonize them, or..those who simply react to that unleashing , to preserve their identity and dignity against a very emphatic, determined and articulate foe?
.
1. "The International Crime of Genocide in Australian law": Sydney Law Review vol 22 P. 534
2. Kruger Genocide claim.
3. Speaking of Terror: Criminalizing Incitement to violence: Page 1, Legal Studies Research Paper
No. 08/112
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Brazil Through Foreign Eyes
Here are 13 questions from an on-line interview called "Brazil Through Foreign Eyes"; one that I found at Gringoes.com. I thought I'd post the questions (only a teeny bit modified) that are asked, along with my responses. I answered them based on where I first arrived in Brazil, my initial impressions, and what I remember from being in Brazil from 2002-2007.
1. Tell us a little about yourself, where are you from, what do you do, etc?
I'm originally from upstate New York, but I've been living in central Florida for almost 6 years now. I'm a high school English teacher and have been teaching for 7 years. My first year teaching was in Manaus, Amazonas and we're now moving back to Brazil because I got a job as a 9th grade English teacher at an international bilingual school.
2. When did you arrive in Brazil and what brought you here?
I first arrived in Brazil in 2002 while I was studying abroad in Uruguay. I had been interested in Portuguese and Brazil for a couple of years, and was taking a Portuguese language class at the university in Montevideo and really wanted to "try out" the language I had used. A friend and I took a weekend trip to Porto Alegre to visit the country and practice speaking Portuguese.
3. What were your first impressions of Brazil?
My first impression of Brazil was that it was green. I remember visiting a fair in Porto Alegre in the middle of a green field. I also noticed the vast difference in the color of mate (chimarrão in Portuguese) which was a much brighter color than that drunk in Uruguay. The weather was also warmer than the winter I had been experiencing in Montevideo for the past few months. The food was delicious and the museums were nice to visit. It also rained nonstop for 3 days.
4. What do you miss most about home?
When I'm abroad I miss my family and friends, of course. I also miss superficial things like TV shows (Oprah), peanut butter, and American stores in shopping malls. I prefer to buy pants/jeans and shoes/sneakers in the U.S.
5. What has been your most frustrating experience in Brazil?
The most frustrating memory that I have from Brazil was getting my ID card while living in Manaus. I had initially taken the completed forms to get my internship visa to the consulate in NYC when applying for the visa. However, when I got to the consulate, I was told that I needed to fill out another application (which of course was the same thing). I did so in a hurry and I did not write out my parents' middle names (I wrote the initials). I had no idea this was such an error. Fast forward a couple of months to my arrival in Brazil....the federal police in Manaus were not accepting of my deletion on the application and they sent me on a trip to the local "American representative" who made me write out my own statement that said who my parents are. He signed in and I took it back to the Federal Police. That was pointless, a waste of time, and a crock of sh*t since I'm the one who wrote the statement for someone else to sign and be considered an official document.
6. What has been your most memorable experience in Brazil?
When I met and fell in love with my husband.
7. What do you most like about Brazil?
This is a hard question because I like so much. I like the affection of Brazilian people, I love the fruits, the healthy lifestyle, the laid back attitudes, the diversity and beauty of the landscape....
8. What is your favorite restaurant/place to hang out?
I didn't visit many restaurants when I lived in Manaus, but I did enjoy going out for late night snacks of tacaca, x-tudos, and other local foods with friends and family. I also really liked going out to drink guarana with açaí and granola. Ponta Negra is a beautiful area to visit in Manaus and I spent many an evening and night there with E and friends.
9. Do you have any funny stories/incidents to tell about your time in Brazil?
The funniest memory that comes to mind is when I adamantely told my best friend in Brazil that I would never fall in love, let alone marry, a Brazilian man.
10. What difference between your homeland and Brazil do you find most striking?
I'd say that Americans are too stressed, overworked, and don't know how to have a good time at a cheap price like Brazilians do.
11. How is your Portuguese coming along? What words do you find most difficult to pronounce/remember or are there any words that you regularly confuse?
Although I'm fluent in Portuguese, I still need to think twice at times when speaking due to the lack of gender in English and the complex grammatical rules in Portuguese.
12. What advice do you have for newcomers to Brazil?
Enjoy your stay because you'll have a great time! With that being said, I haven't been to Brazil since 2007 so I can only advice on what I know. I'd advice people not to be afraid of experiencing something new and to be open and ready for a good time. Take advantage of everything that's a novelty and different!
13. What are some things that you would recommend for a visitor to do in Brazil?
I'd recommend visiting the Amazon because there is nothing like it (just take a look at all of my posts on Manaus). You also can't visit Brazil without seeing Christ the Redeemer and the Sugar Loaf.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Dr Colin Tatz- On trial in the Court of Public Opinion.
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
Bin Laden killed- and body mutilated?
By now we've all heard about it.. Bin Laden, finally caught and killed....while hiding behind a woman's skirts. These Muslim "superhero's" (in their own dreamworld) ultimately used a woman as a human shield, who tragically lost her life along with Bin Laden.
But what happened then? An uncomfirmed report states that the Americans mutilated his body after they killed him. How would that be ? Would that be sickening?.. would it be evil? Would it be a crime against humanity.. a war crime even?
Imagine if the Americans had caught him alive..and THEN mutilated him.. while breathing, perhaps poking his eyes out with hot steel rods, how bad would that be!!! and then..if they severed his feet and hands, and let him bleed slowly to death while watching him and taunting him... would that be unspeakably evil' ?
There IS however, a very real report of how a major religious leader did that kind of thing to people he captured. Can you guess who that might be ? Here is the full account/report.
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234:
There was no report whatsoever about Americans mutilating Bin Laden's body while alive or dead. Oh.. they must have taken some part of him for the DNA test. But the above report is real and found in numerous places in the source documents from which it was taken.
Make up your own mind about whether you think such a person should be celebrated in Western countries, my opinion is clear.. "no"...not now, not ever! In my opinion, those who follow and glorify and celebrate such a person, have serious psychological issues, in that they have had to invert 'right and wrong'. My concern, and I believe that of the public is how such people might act when certain trigger events happen around the world, such as the killing of Bin Laden?
But what happened then? An uncomfirmed report states that the Americans mutilated his body after they killed him. How would that be ? Would that be sickening?.. would it be evil? Would it be a crime against humanity.. a war crime even?
Imagine if the Americans had caught him alive..and THEN mutilated him.. while breathing, perhaps poking his eyes out with hot steel rods, how bad would that be!!! and then..if they severed his feet and hands, and let him bleed slowly to death while watching him and taunting him... would that be unspeakably evil' ?
There IS however, a very real report of how a major religious leader did that kind of thing to people he captured. Can you guess who that might be ? Here is the full account/report.
Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234:
Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle ."
There was no report whatsoever about Americans mutilating Bin Laden's body while alive or dead. Oh.. they must have taken some part of him for the DNA test. But the above report is real and found in numerous places in the source documents from which it was taken.
Make up your own mind about whether you think such a person should be celebrated in Western countries, my opinion is clear.. "no"...not now, not ever! In my opinion, those who follow and glorify and celebrate such a person, have serious psychological issues, in that they have had to invert 'right and wrong'. My concern, and I believe that of the public is how such people might act when certain trigger events happen around the world, such as the killing of Bin Laden?
Sunday, May 1, 2011
It's May Day
It's May Day. The first day of May. International Worker's Day. Labour Day.
May Day, being the start of the month of May, means that we are probably "out" in about 10 weeks. I can't believe it! I remember when the job was offered to me back in December - more than 8 months ago. Time really does fly. A lot has happened since the end of 2010. Not only in my personal life, but at work and school, too.
A friend of mine was telling me just last night about all of the bad luck she has been having recently, and as my heart goes out to her, it also reminds me of what has been going right for us. I feel for her, but I am reminded that I need to be thankful for what I have and for the "luck" that we've had over the past few months.
I've almost finished my first and last school year at my "new" school. This means I've survived!! I have completed graduate school and will graduate at the end of the week (woo hoo!!). E got his U.S. citizenship and will receive his certificate from his ESOL class this week (which will be of value in Brazil). With that being said, life for us in the U.S. together has not always been a walk in the park. It's been a rocky road. However, I'm choosing not to focus on the negative or the hardships we've had, and to stay positive and be grateful for all that we have accomplished over the last few months, and years.
With the short amount of time left, we need to really hussle to make sure our move will be as smooth as possible. I'm not going to bore you again with all of the details and lists of what I need to get done before we leave because I've done that before. It's just a reminder, in print, that we still have a lot to do before our departure date.
What I do want to do is show gratitude for what we have, and the opportunity that I was given to follow my dream of teaching abroad (again). For the past I-don't-know-how-many-years, I've been wanting to return to South America, or go somewhere new, to teach. I have been granted this chance and will be embarking on the journey in about 2 months.
To the month of May, welcome...
The Criminality of the Socialist Alternative?
Socialist Alternative...
"Incitement to Hatred and Violence."
CHARGE. The Socialist Alternative Web site/organization is in breach of the
Offences
(1) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:
(a) the first person intentionally urges another person, or a group, to use force or violence against a group (the targeted group ); and
(b) the first person does so intending that force or violence will occur; and
(c) the targeted group is distinguished by race, religion, nationality, national or ethnic origin or political opinion; and
(d) the use of the force or violence would threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
EVIDENCE.
On the Socialist Alternative Web Site, the following is found:
1/ There is no parliamentary road to socialism. Bitter experience has shown that mere tinkering with our society will not end oppression or exploitation. The attempts of parties like the ALP and the Greens in Australia to reform capitalism have always ended in disappointment.
3/ A successful revolution will involve workers taking control of their workplaces, dismantling existing state institutions (parliaments, courts, the armed forces and police) and replacing them with an entirely new state based on genuinely democratic control by the working class. Such a revolution will not be achieved by a coup or the heroic efforts of a minority. We are not anarchists, who argue against all states – even one democratically controlled by the working class. Nor do we support terrorism, guerillaism, or any variant of so called "revolutionary" politics that conceives social change as coming through the actions of anything other than the conscious self-activity of the mass of workers.
4/ Only a socialist revolution can bring about the genuine liberation of the oppressed.
5/ This is why building an organisation around clear, revolutionary Marxist politics is so vital today.
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO: (Marxist Politics)
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Proletarians of all countries, unite!DISCUSSION.
In spite of their apparent disclaimer in section 3, this is clearly contradicted in 4, and 5 where Marxist Revolutionary Politics is invoked. As the mnifesto also clearly states, such a revolution will only be by force.
Clearly the SA is in breach of the crimes act. The ADL calls on the Australian Federal Police to act now to halt this diabolical organization from freely pursuing it's criminal (in our view) activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
